[SPYCRAFT 2.0] How does it play?
- Thread starter GlassJaw
- Start date
Victim
First Post
Psion said:
Well, it's also frustrating to just ditch DC, since increasing the game playing of many non combat activities seems like a good idea. Skill checks, opposed skill checks, and extended skill checks are all really just die rolling exercises (once you decide to make them), so switching away from that seems like a good idea. I'd say that the DC rules attempt to serve as a solution instead of the usual problems, but disappointingly fall short.
But yeah, running several conflicts or a combat and a conflict in tandem seems like a good solution to one of the problems I mentioned. It also makes sense in the opening phases of the mission (so and so infiltrates the base, while another character seduces a suspected enemy agent).
Psion
Adventurer
johnnype said:
Yeah, they did.
There's a complete, formatted version of the SEH and SFA conversions in an add on document that was distributed with the PDF releases of those books.
There was an abbreviated version online. That was on the AEG boards and I think it eventually got folded into the Wiki... which is currently offline as they are preparing to switch to new forum software.
They did put out a teaser with the converted departments when the SEH PDF came out...
http://www.crafty-games.com/dnn/Com...forumid/8/postid/3976/view/topic/Default.aspx
Of course that will probably be gone in 2 days when the new forum arrives... but it might also be in the wiki.
Gundark
Explorer
I am quite fond of the spycraft 2.0 system. I have been thinking of using the back to basics character options for a world war 2 era game I'm cooking up.
Gear can be overwhelming at the start. What we did as a group might break the bounds of reality but it made the game far faster and smoother. As the GC I would give a list of gear that they had for the mission, these are items that I figured would be helpful for the current mission. The party might get a few things before hand but we would pay for the gear as we went. For example " wow we need a bug sweeper for this", the group would spend the appropriate gear pick and "pull one out of his backpack".
I know the above seems to be unrealistic, however my group would spend a considerable amount of time "shopping" and may not even get around to using the gear item. This way we kept the game running smoothly.
Dramatic conflicts work quite well IMHO. They can be as descriptive as you want, or you can keep them to a few rolls. It boils down to playstyle.
If I had to critique the game, it would be aimed at the skill system. IMHO the skills could be streamlined more. I think the star wars saga ruls got it right. SC 2.0 seems to have some overlap in the skills.
Gear can be overwhelming at the start. What we did as a group might break the bounds of reality but it made the game far faster and smoother. As the GC I would give a list of gear that they had for the mission, these are items that I figured would be helpful for the current mission. The party might get a few things before hand but we would pay for the gear as we went. For example " wow we need a bug sweeper for this", the group would spend the appropriate gear pick and "pull one out of his backpack".
I know the above seems to be unrealistic, however my group would spend a considerable amount of time "shopping" and may not even get around to using the gear item. This way we kept the game running smoothly.
Dramatic conflicts work quite well IMHO. They can be as descriptive as you want, or you can keep them to a few rolls. It boils down to playstyle.
If I had to critique the game, it would be aimed at the skill system. IMHO the skills could be streamlined more. I think the star wars saga ruls got it right. SC 2.0 seems to have some overlap in the skills.
GlassJaw
Hero
More reading, more observations...
Ok, so I noticed there are no iterative attacks, no AoO's, and no rules/extra attacks for TWF.
This leads me to believe that as the players (and enemies) get higher in level, combat is going to take longer and longer. Is that the case? What is the overall feel of combat at different points in the level progression of the game?
Does anyone play with iterative attacks and TWF rules?
Ok, so I noticed there are no iterative attacks, no AoO's, and no rules/extra attacks for TWF.
This leads me to believe that as the players (and enemies) get higher in level, combat is going to take longer and longer. Is that the case? What is the overall feel of combat at different points in the level progression of the game?
Does anyone play with iterative attacks and TWF rules?
Psion
Adventurer
GlassJaw said:
TWF = Two Weapon Fighting?
Two Weapon Basics feat gives you a final attack with your extra weapon (pg. 176)
I feel that iterative attacks contribute to combats taking a long time in D&D.
I've yet to run a game over 6th level, but there are a few things that could make the dynamic in spycraft different from other games:
0) Everybody gets two attacks in SC to begin with.
1) The VP/WP means that any attack that is a threat could be fight-ending.
2) Standard characters only have damage saves, so any hit can take them out potentially.
3) Higher level characters have more and bigger action dice.
4) Combat focussed characters at high level get access to feats and class abilities that can end fights quicker or give them more attacks. Think of the grunt's Dead to Rights ability, the cleaner's Fatal Attack, and so forth.
5) Fight dragging on to long? Got a good resolve skill and reflex save? Why not try a stand off action.
Gundark
Explorer
GlassJaw said:
Well considering that most combats will be against mook style NPCs and they use damage saves combat really isn't any longer. There are feats which cause you to do more damage.
That said I'm really excited about Star War Saga edition. I have to say I really love how they have done things. I havn't played SW:saga however preliminary readings make me wonder if it'll be better than spycraft. It could be easily converted to a d20 modern setting.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
It is also worth mentioning that Spycraft combat is busy. The first few times, yes combat will take a while. The floating initiative system, in particular, takes some getting used to.
But combat is seldom boring - players, in my experience at least, are more willing to try something new and different, partly in hopes of getting a bonus Action Die, and partly because they can sometimes pull it off. A couple of months back I had a PC jump from a zeppelin onto an ornithopter while the character tried to prevent the villain's right hand man from escaping. The PC survived the resulting crash, the henchman was not so lucky.
Action Dice change the pace of combat by a lot - a character can choose which threats get activated as criticals, can attempt unlikely maneuvers, and keep his character from death, all by using Action Dice at the right times.
Mooks (called 'Minions' in Spycraft) go down with ease, automatic weapons fire can take down an entire roomful in a couple of rounds. (While a character does not gain iterative attacks fully automatic weapons make that lack rather a moot point - an Uzi can still put out an awful lot of lead.) Between grenades, automatic weapons, and suppressive fire combat does not drag out much at all.
Spycraft has become my default game for Modern settings, from my 1880s Steampunk game to more modern espionage and covert op games - currently I am running the first mission for a Delta Green campaign using Spycraft. So far, so good.
The Auld Grump
But combat is seldom boring - players, in my experience at least, are more willing to try something new and different, partly in hopes of getting a bonus Action Die, and partly because they can sometimes pull it off. A couple of months back I had a PC jump from a zeppelin onto an ornithopter while the character tried to prevent the villain's right hand man from escaping. The PC survived the resulting crash, the henchman was not so lucky.
Action Dice change the pace of combat by a lot - a character can choose which threats get activated as criticals, can attempt unlikely maneuvers, and keep his character from death, all by using Action Dice at the right times.
Mooks (called 'Minions' in Spycraft) go down with ease, automatic weapons fire can take down an entire roomful in a couple of rounds. (While a character does not gain iterative attacks fully automatic weapons make that lack rather a moot point - an Uzi can still put out an awful lot of lead.) Between grenades, automatic weapons, and suppressive fire combat does not drag out much at all.
Spycraft has become my default game for Modern settings, from my 1880s Steampunk game to more modern espionage and covert op games - currently I am running the first mission for a Delta Green campaign using Spycraft. So far, so good.
The Auld Grump
GlassJaw
Hero
Again, thanks for the insight everyone. I read through the Feats and Combat chapters last night and I'm starting to get the feel of the mechanics. I noticed there are a lot of options for players to get more attacks which is cool.
Another question to the GM's out there: Have you made any cards or handouts for the various conditions, options, rules, etc to speed up play? It seems like having some reference sheets for the players would be extremely helpful, as would something to keep track of any modifiers in effect during combat.
Do you find that you always have your nose in the book because you have to constantly look things up?
Another question to the GM's out there: Have you made any cards or handouts for the various conditions, options, rules, etc to speed up play? It seems like having some reference sheets for the players would be extremely helpful, as would something to keep track of any modifiers in effect during combat.
Do you find that you always have your nose in the book because you have to constantly look things up?
