Spycraft 2.0 PDF available

[jezter6]

I picked it up for that same reason, but I don't think I'll actually end up using any of it because everything is so tied to it's own system it's not portable.

I'm starting to get depressed that everyone is diverging so far off the beaten path of d20 that it's starting to look less and less like d20 and now it takes work to convert it to any other d20 based system.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm starting to get depressed that everyone is diverging so far off the beaten path of d20 that it's starting to look less and less like d20 and now it takes work to convert it to any other d20 based system.

Same here. I think it's a designer-personality thing. The people who take the initiative to write and design usually do so because they think THEIR ideas are better. It flows pretty naturally then, that the stuff that gets written is from people who thought they could do better than what was out there.

Which, really, I don't see improving things a whole lot. Usually one person or a small group of people (who get caught up in GroupThink pretty easily) just decide to rewrite a bunch of existing stuff and create their own new rules for some other stuff.

Over and over.

As opposed to people changing a few things for the better and leaving the bulk, or consulting as much OGC material as they can on a subject and using as much as possible only changing what HAS to be changed to perform the function they seek to.

SC2.0 is, IMO, one of the most guilty sources of this. There's alot of stuff in there that is, functionally, no different than d20 standard ... but rewritten and renamed and slightly tweaked to no appreciable benefit other than leaving the system far enough off d20 base that it becomes difficult to work with. So difficult that, 9 times out of 10, it isn't worth the time to try backward-converting it. Stuff like changing the initative system, the thousand-and-one damage types, the skill system, etc.

--fje

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Whereas I would rather just dustbin D20 Modern completely and do stuff for Spycraft from the concept up - I do not need a direct conversion of a D20 Zombie to have Zombies in my Spycraft game...

I felt that Spycraft was an improvement in nearly every way over D20 Modern, with the major exception of magic. (And if I wait long enough then I have no doubt that someone will address this...)

The Auld Grump, different strokes for different folks.

And some of us are so different that we give each other strokes... *THUD!*

 

[jezter6]

I much rather the toolkit approach, so long as the toolkit doesn't decide to use a different kind of screwdriver that there's nothing to tool with.

After hearing so much about the campaign qualities, I thought it would be the thing that would make spycraft viable to me, but after seeing it first hand, I wasn't impressed with the implementation. The theory is sound. Sort of like the skull levels in grim tales, which I do like as an toolkit.

The thing with spycraft, is that it's SO innovative, it's no longer possible to toolkit it. If you want to borrow a few feats from here, you have to borrow changes to skills and action dice just to make many of the features work. Nothing is simple to just cut and paste anymore.

 

[Vigilance]

I think it's a designer-personality thing.

I think that's part of it.

I also think a big part of it is that those systems that are so divergent from d20 standard that they're effectively different systems sell better.

There's no economic incentive to tow the line about any part of d20 you don't like, and in fact, making it REAL different seems to attract a lot of attention and make a book sell better.

An example of this mindset in action from my personal experience: right after d20 Future I did a Blood and Space II that conformed as close as possible to d20F, rather than bastardizing the new official rule set to conform to what I'd already written.

When folks mentioned me cleaving to the system at all, it was as a negative.

That's the experience I have had with Blood and Vigilance as well. More folks see it layering on top of the rules they already have as a negative. I didn't design it that way because I couldn't have added 100 pages to the book by describing a different way to do everything.

Contrary to what all the cool kids are doing these days, it's often harder to color inside the lines that it is to move the lines everytime they get in your way.

Chuck

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

There's that, I suppose. The "New Shiny" syndrome.

Maybe I'm just a d20 Grognard. I think d20Modern is "good enough". Especially in its modularity. Grim Tales added to that modularity for me, allowing me to do just about anything I want by shifting a few things around.

All built on the d20 core as-is. Skills work the same, damage types are the same, even the Massive Damage Threshold concept is already in core d20, just tweaked around to different purpose.

I think some things in Spycraft are great. Lots of stuff. I just wish it was something I could ADD to d20Modern/GT/etc to create The One True Game (For Me). As it is, even if you like Spycraft, you can't take stuff from d20Modern that you like and add it in.

--fje

 

[Armistice]

In all fairness. Spycraft 2.0 does not sell itself as d20. Spycraft 2.0 is an OGL book.

We're all in search of the 'One True Game', and most of us have different ideas of what that should entail. What some call innovation, others call needless divergence. For me, d20 Modern always felt like it was missing something when I ran it for my players. I picked up the original Spycraft 'cause I'd heard good things about it and liked it. Didn't play it much but I really liked the direction they were heading.

The best d20 Modern supplement I ever bought was Blood & Fists. I felt it really did what it set out to do in an innovative way. Spycraft's entire core-rulebook works like Blood & Fists for me and both products seem to share a similar design philosophy that I feel is missing from d20 Modern itself. Call it elegant emulation.

Spycraft 2.0 finally clicked. I got the familiarity I needed to sell it to my players and the toolkit really meshes with my style. Modular and just enough granularity to sink my teeth into. I've given money to both systems, so I won't feel guilty choosing one over the other now. I think the real difference is Spycraft feels and plays stylish, but it does so in a manner that works for my game.

I think I've wandered off topic, so let me just say I'm glad Crafty has decided to add Spycraft .pdf to their range.