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

[Kanegrundar]

I prefer D20 Modern over SC2. Sure, SC2 isn't tied so much to the super-spy genre that is can't do anything else, but the game still has that Military/Super-spy game feel from everything from the classes to skills to feats to equipment. It's not nearly as useful to use in a game were people are Joe the Truck Driver or Jolee the Cheerleader. Plus, there's so much to that that it's a little overwhelming to players new to the game. Don't get me wrong, It's a great game and has rules that do things a lot better than D20 Modern (I've stolen the vehicle and autofire rules to use in Modern).

I prefer D20 Modern because no matter what I want to run, be it spies, military, realistic, modern fantasy, wild west, or far future, I can easily run that with D20 Modern. Plus, Modern has a great wealth of supplements that help to even further gain the feel that I'm after.

Both systems are pretty modular. However, since D20 Modern is more closely tied to D&D, I can use all sorts of D&D material a bit more easily with Modern than SC2. Modern is modular enough that if you find better rules than Modern offers in a particular area, then it's usually pretty easy to plug in those new rules.

All in all, my preference comes back to what feel I like better. Reading through D20 MOdern, my imagination feels much more wide open to making the campaign that I want. Reading through SC2, even though the rules allow for a greater range of genres to play in, the art and set up of the book is such that it still feel skewed towards espionage play, and I'm not usually interested in that style of play.

Either way you go, you'll be playing with a great system.

 

[wingsandsword]

I don't have SC 2.0, I bought original SpyCraft when it came out, and it does seem like a really nice superspy/technothriller/military RPG, but it's not really as widely flexible as d20 Modern for a wide variety of games. I also didn't like that it was so different from normal d20 that it felt like I was having to almost relearn the whole system, with different types of actions, different rules for just about everything it seemed. If you knew it, and knew it well, it would probably be very good for what it was designed for.

As for characters in d20 Modern being weak at low levels, that's kind of the point. A 1st level d20 Modern character is about the level of skill I'd expect from a naive College Student, a somewhat streetwise or experienced High School student, or a raw Army recruit. The typical "guy on the street" would likely be a 2nd or 3rd level ordinary, and even when in the published modules they show competent professionals things like professional soldiers (like in Adelie 14 on the WotC site, where Ukrainian Naval Infantry troopers are an antagonist), they are about 4th level (ordinaries). 1st level in d20 Modern means something a little different than in D&D. A squad of professional soldiers would likely be 1st level warriors, not Strong Ordinary 2/Fast Ordinary 2. You have to think on a slightly different scale, it's one of the nuances of using d20M. There is even a table on p.35 that spells it out. Heck, juts being middle-aged means you're likely 6th level (probably Ordinary) from life experience. It's not meant to be a game where most people are 1st level and the PC's always start there.

They even say in Urban Arcana, in the guidelines for converting between d20 Modern and D&D that there is about a 3 level difference. A 4th level d20 Modern character is supposed to be about equal in power to a 1st level D&D character.

d20 Modern works very well for games involving supernatural creatures or powers (since they were presumed in writing the core, and translating creatures and powers from D&D is presumed to be possible, with a little work). It works very well for relatively low-power games (or games that start out low powered and go higher), and I do appreciate it being flexible and thanks to suppliments like d20 Past and d20 Future, capiable of running anything out-of-the-box from the Renaissance to the distant future (I'd imagine they'd do PL 0, 1 and 2 as official suppliments for d20 Modern, but WotC would probably see that as stepping on D&D's toes).

If I had to make any rules changes to d20 Modern, I'd include WP/VP instead of the HP/Lowered MDT rule. I read that the only reason they didn't include it up front was that it was for ease of compatibility with D&D and ease of adoption of the game by D&D players.

 

[Psion]

I don't have SC 2.0, I bought original SpyCraft when it came out, and it does seem like a really nice superspy/technothriller/military RPG, but it's not really as widely flexible as d20 Modern for a wide variety of games.

Once again, if you are making assertions about the flexibility of SC 2.0 based on only owning or playing SC 1.0, you really need to understand that campaign qualities are one of the major changes between editions. The campaign qualities really make it sing when it comes to flexibility.

Really.

 

[Vigilance]

If I had to make any rules changes to d20 Modern, I'd include WP/VP instead of the HP/Lowered MDT rule. I read that the only reason they didn't include it up front was that it was for ease of compatibility with D&D and ease of adoption of the game by D&D players.

That's not the only reason (though I do agree it was one of them).

There's also a lot of really talented designers who feel that having multiple pools of HP is more klunky and that it's better to use a sliding scale of MDT.

Guys like Monte Cook (who more or less pioneered the use of the sliding MDT scale for easy "grit adjustment" in his brilliant d20 CoC).

Chuck

 

[Yellow Sign]

While I really like a lot of things about Spycraft 2.0, it intimidates the heck out of me. And I am an long time gamer with over 25 years of experience.

If it was possible to cherry pick the best things from Spycraft 2.0 and d20 Modern and mix them together then I think you would have a pretty sweet system.


YS

 

[Henry]

While I really like a lot of things about Spycraft 2.0, it intimidates the heck out of me. And I am an long time gamer with over 25 years of experience.

If it was possible to cherry pick the best things from Spycraft 2.0 and d20 Modern and mix them together then I think you would have a pretty sweet system.


YS

I keep wishing I could talk Wulf Ratbane into a Grim Tales 2.0, but so far he's not been willing or able to...

(Grim Tales being an excellent mix of d20 Modern, Spycraft 1, D&D, and several other games, of course...)

 

[Karl Green]

Power level aside, the 'spies only' riff is not only old, it's incorrect. SC 2.0's a rulebook for modern-day and post-modern games, and has the best suite of tools for such bar none.

I have to disagree at bit there with ya Spycraft is cool and all for what it does BUT it is very geared towards certain "genes" (cinimatic +)... just cause someone else has run a police drama or horror with it does not mean "anyone" could. PLUS it adds and changes soooooo many little rules for no reason.

Is it better then D20 Modern? Hmmm maybe for some things and some for some groups, but that I like Grim Tales or D20 Modern with some houserules LOTS better.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

There's alot of goodness in SC2 that I, personally, think could be made better with d20M.

But that's me.

--fje

 

[AscentStudios]

I have to disagree at bit there with ya Spycraft is cool and all for what it does BUT it is very geared towards certain "genes" (cinimatic +)... just cause someone else has run a police drama or horror with it does not mean "anyone" could.

The same could be said for D20 Modern, which is obviously very slanted towards magic and supernatural elements in campaigns by default. I would say it's nearly as easy to run a game that sits slightly outside Spycraft's "main genre" of cinematic ___ as it is to do the same outside of d20M's 'main genre" of magic in the modern era.

PLUS it adds and changes soooooo many little rules for no reason.

I'd be remiss not to contend that. Every rule was carefully considered and definately not frivolous or just there to "be different." For example, some folks above have mentioned the damage types as an unnecessary change. SRD d20 has "fire" as a damage type only for the purposes of resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities, but otherwise it's the same. Fire damage in Spycraft 2.0 is actually different from electrical damage or acid damage or regular lethal damage - you can be set on fire from a fire attack, for instance, and may run around screaming when you do It's a little more simulationism, but that does appeal to some folks. In fact, stuff like that was requested by our fan base.

Plus, with a codified system, when we list sneak attack damage in an ability, we don't have to reprint all its rules That means less room that could be used for new mechanics is wasted on reprints...definately a win for you

 

[Psion]

Plus, with a codified system, when we list sneak attack damage in an ability, we don't have to reprint all its rules

What?

How'd you manage this under AEG's watch? It seems like it's principle over there. In one book I just got, they reprinted all the special rules for familiars with every wizard characters in the book... in some cases twice on the same page.