FC's Complex Reputation Undeserved?

[Howndawg]

In part due to the scarcity of products released by WotC, I decided to check out both Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft. I know FC has a reputation for being a fairly complex game, but frankly, I don't find it that much more complex than PF, and in some ways it's actually much simpler. Skills are more streamlined, feat chains make feat selection easier, and the lack of dump stats make it harder for a new player to accidently nerf himself. But FC has a rep for being complex while PF doesn't.

Is this rep a legacy from Spycraft 2.0, which frankly IS that complex? Or is there something I'm not seeing? I'm wondering because out of 4e, PF, and FC, FC looks to be the best out of the three games for handling games the way I like to play them.

 

[Krensky]

Frankly, I didn't find SC2.0 that complex and many of the simplifications in FC are more not needing lots and lots of special cases to support Organized play. The two major actual simplifications to rules is limiting result caps to only untrained skills (which is pretty much the only place where they mattered most of the time anyway) and eliminating Dynamic Initiative (*sniff*).

But yeah, it's not a complex game. It's simpler then Pathfinder or D&D 3.X.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Complexity in FantasyCraft only kicks in when you try to do things with it that it was not designed to do. If you are running the game as intended, in the time eras that it is designed for, then it works very well. Combat is a whole lot of fun, running adventures is easy, and the way NPCs/Monsters are handled is one of my favorite bits of game design ever.

Adding equipment to fit the game to 19th C. Britain? Not so much. Twiddling with the rules for poisons? Not fun. At all.

As a result, I love the game, but don't play it because I freaking hate the Forge chapter and to a lesser extent the way treasure is handled.

I have no problem adding things to Spycraft, and consider it my default modern game - I am currently using it for yet-another-steampunk-game (I am wrapping my steampunk Gargoylecraft game next week), and have used it to run Fallout.

The Auld Grump

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I found FC to be delightfully easy compared to games nearer to the 3.x baseline. But it is different in nearly every aspect of the D20 rules, occasionally substantially. That can make it appear complex for someone who has a major background in 3.x.

I like that it got a major revamp, touching some edge case rules and tightening them up for later printings. I wish I had opportunities to play it.

 

[Krensky]

Adding equipment to fit the game to 19th C. Britain? Not so much. Twiddling with the rules for poisons? Not fun. At all.

And yet I've almost killed several PCs (which is the outcome I wanted) with poisons and had no problems with fitting repeating firearms into the game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And yet I've almost killed several PCs (which is the outcome I wanted) with poisons and had no problems with fitting repeating firearms into the game.

Killing with poisions is easy - I wanted more flexibility in regards to poisons - which the game does not support. Qualities for poisons should have been in the base rules.

The problem with advanced guns has more to do with the loot system than it does with coming up with rules - the economic system is overly integrated.

Thank you, but I will stick with Spycraft 2.0 - I actually like the Big Score addon for SC more than I do the Loot system in FC. (I loved running Fallout with Spycraft.)

For me the economic system breaks the game and kills any desire to run a campaign. A scenario? That is fine, all my favorite bits can come into play. A campaign? Sorry, I hate Forge and Loot more than I love FC. It is a damned shame, because combat, character generation, races, NPCs, and the equipment itself are all very well handled. But I hate the economics.

It is much easier to add things to Pathfinder, even though there are many things that I prefer in FC. Pathfinder is more flexible. In the end I value flexibility more than innovation. (I blame my inner engineer....)

The Auld Grump

 

[Krensky]

Killing with poisions is easy - I wanted more flexibility in regards to poisons - which the game does not support. Qualities for poisons should have been in the base rules.

Which is a claim I have never, ever understood. I find poisons in FC far more flexible then Pathfinder. Without house-ruling anything I can get a range of DCs, incubation times, and effects. Heck, this is pretty much true of any comparison. Pathfinder classes feel like straight jackets loaded down with baggage even with Archetypes, for instance.

The problem with advanced guns has more to do with the loot system than it does with coming up with rules - the economic system is overly integrated.

Never had a single problem. Pick a price and go with it. Won't even need house rules or home-brew when 10k Bullets come out, but until then it's trivial to figure a silver cost for a revolver or whatnot. I've never grocked your argument that they don't work with the systems, especially because...

Thank you, but I will stick with Spycraft 2.0 - I actually like the Big Score addon for SC more than I do the Loot system in FC. (I loved running Fallout with Spycraft.)

It's the same system.

It is much easier to add things to Pathfinder, even though there are many things that I prefer in FC. Pathfinder is more flexible. In the end I value flexibility more than innovation. (I blame my inner engineer....)

Which is funny because I find Pathfinder far more inflexible, hidebound, resistant to adding things then Fantasy Craft. Heck, I've yet to find a single thing I can't do better in FC then I can in Pathfinder. I'll play a PF game to play with my friends, buy I will never run one.

But to each their own.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's the same system.

Similar - not same. Worse, not better. The changes made decreased flexibility. The Crafty crew did not want gear to be as important as character development, but as a result decreased the flexiblity of the economic systems.

Which is funny because I find Pathfinder far more inflexible, hidebound, resistant to adding things then Fantasy Craft. Heck, I've yet to find a single thing I can't do better in FC then I can in Pathfinder.

How about having a functional economy? One that is not based entirely around the player characters?

FC is better integrated by far than PFRPG, but creating things that should be in the rules, but are not, is infinitely easier with PF. Focus brings things within the field to greater visibility, those things outide of the field fade to inconsequence.

I'll play a PF game to play with my friends, buy I will never run one.

But to each their own.

As I said, there are many, many things that I think FC handles better than PF, but the one thing that I feel it handles badly more than offsets those advantages.

If an alternate gear/economic system were available then I might be happy. But I hate the Forge system quite intensely, trying to get it to do what I wanted pissed me off so much that I essentially dropped the game - it was easier to add magic to Spycraft than to get FC to handle equipment in a fashion that I liked.

SC2 is very nearly ideal for my purposes, not quite spot on (again the economy) but much better than, say, D20 Modern.

I also dislike the magic system in FC, but was able to cobble EoM:ME in quite easily. Fits better in SC2 though, but that is more because of the cultural outlook of EoM.

So, I use SC2 for modern games and PF for fantasy. Plus I have a nice library of OGL material that I can cannabalize in either event.

For what it is worth, I am not the only one to have these problems - I think that FC could capture a much larger share of the market if it weren't for the Forge chapter.

I am glad that FC works for you, but after working with it, trying to nudge it towards Steampunk, I felt like recreating a scene from Fargo with it... shreds of paper rather than blood pluming into the snow....

The Auld Grump

 

[Krensky]

How about having a functional economy? One that is not based entirely around the player characters?

Pathfinder's economy is just as disfunctional and PC centered as Fantasy Craft's. FC is just way more upfront about it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pathfinder's economy is just as disfunctional and PC centered as Fantasy Craft's. FC is just way more upfront about it.

Read 'more abstract and less simulationist'. Which for me is synonomous with 'worse'. Given that FC does not even try to tie economy to region in even the passing fashion that the GMG does for PF.... For me it fails in much the same fashion, and to much the same degree, as the Wealth stat in D20 Modern.

I am fairly certain that the parts of FC that I like are those parts that are more simulationist than PF*, while the parts of PF that I prefer are more simulationist than FC. Simulationist in this case comes closer to verisimiltude than to simulating reality - for me it goes too far into unbelievable, breaking my suspension of disbelief.

I would have loved to see more material for FC from the Crafty lads - it is entirely possible that a less abstract would convert me, and others who prefer a more simulationist economy, to FC. But releases have been few and far between, since the Crafty Crue is doing this in their own time and on their own nickel. I would greatly prefer to see the spate of PDFs that Crafty used to support Spycraft than wait for three years and two games for Spellbound.

In any event, I doubt that we will either convince the other, and we have drifted far from the original topic.

The Auld Grump

* A major exception is the scalable NPC system - while abstract it is also my very favorite part of FC.