Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 2976050" data-attributes="member: 12332">I'll humbly disagree about magic being as core to d20Modern as superspy cinema is to SC2.&nbsp; The base classes don't say:&nbsp; &quot;Man, I need a magic cellphone.&quot;&nbsp; Where-as the classes of SC2 do say, to me, &quot;Superspies and Summer Movies&quot;.&nbsp; That magic fits in easily says to me, I think, that they just didn't change things that would make it fit less-well.&nbsp; That damage is damage is damage means you can slot in Fireball without having to take into account a room rull of Stress and how much is armor piercing and etc etc.I applaud that the fan-base got changes through the door that made the game more to their liking ... but I do think those changes made the game less multi-genre and, as you say, more &quot;simulationism&quot; and better suited to the core genre it espouses.&nbsp; There are assumptions built into the rules about how people react to, say, getting shot or burnt or how they interact with others or have a &quot;dramatic scene&quot; or use a shotgun or use skills ... or what skills are included in the system and NOT included in the system.&nbsp; That there's a specific damage type called &quot;Laser Damage&quot;.&nbsp; Etc. That doesn't make the game BAD ... it just makes the game, when taken as a whole, feel like a Cinematic Superspies game and the campaign qualities feel like afterthoughts.&nbsp;&nbsp; They do a good job of letting somebody who REALLY likes SC2 do another genre ... they don't, however, really seem to inspire somebody who wants a generalist system to take up SC2 as that system.&nbsp; EDIT:&nbsp; Which doesn't have to be a bad thing.&nbsp; I think many of the things that people see SC2 as doing &quot;better&quot; are things that make the game better for its genre.&nbsp; That this, at the same time, distances it from generalism is to be expected.--fje</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeapThaumaturgist, post: 2976050, member: 12332"] I'll humbly disagree about magic being as core to d20Modern as superspy cinema is to SC2. The base classes don't say: "Man, I need a magic cellphone." Where-as the classes of SC2 do say, to me, "Superspies and Summer Movies". That magic fits in easily says to me, I think, that they just didn't change things that would make it fit less-well. That damage is damage is damage means you can slot in Fireball without having to take into account a room rull of Stress and how much is armor piercing and etc etc. I applaud that the fan-base got changes through the door that made the game more to their liking ... but I do think those changes made the game less multi-genre and, as you say, more "simulationism" and better suited to the core genre it espouses. There are assumptions built into the rules about how people react to, say, getting shot or burnt or how they interact with others or have a "dramatic scene" or use a shotgun or use skills ... or what skills are included in the system and NOT included in the system. That there's a specific damage type called "Laser Damage". Etc. That doesn't make the game BAD ... it just makes the game, when taken as a whole, feel like a Cinematic Superspies game and the campaign qualities feel like afterthoughts. They do a good job of letting somebody who REALLY likes SC2 do another genre ... they don't, however, really seem to inspire somebody who wants a generalist system to take up SC2 as that system. EDIT: Which doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think many of the things that people see SC2 as doing "better" are things that make the game better for its genre. That this, at the same time, distances it from generalism is to be expected. --fje [/QUOTE]

Verification