Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9644053" data-attributes="member: 18">I am saying it doesn't work for cinematic spy action or realistic spy action, period.But... and this is significant I admit!Some people don't care about either! They just want a loosely spy-themed game with rules that support that spy theme (even if they don't produce results that resemble spy media), and which don't require their group to learn an entire new rules-set, and they don't care if it's basically D&D in a balaclava and clutching a Walther PPK! That's fine for them!This has been true throughout RPG history - it's probably least true now because so many easy-to-learn and genre-suited rules sets are out there (and PtbA and FitD are fundamentally good at genre-matching, especially if you're not a fundamentalist about what PtbA/FitD "has to" be) but we still regularly see 3PP games (usually not particularly huge-profile ones but still) which use 5E's rules to do a genre they're fundamentally not good at, because to the people buying and backing them, that doesn't really matter, what matters is not learning new rules! Just getting to play something new and different with familiar rules/approaches!That's actually kind of partly how we got into that position. There were no "recent" and well-designed and in-print spy RPGs in like, 2002 (if there were, we didn't know about them), and I wasn't thoughtful/clever enough to adapt Feng Shui or something, but there was Spycraft, and it had this additional, significant benefit, that the two people in the group who really weren't good at learning new rules (and to be fair, my brother and I had overloaded them by swapping systems repeatedly in that era!) already knew the general 3E/d20 approach.(The reason I think Spycraft came out first is that we tried it first btw. But I could be wrong.)</blockquote>

Verification