[Spycraft] More realistic, politcal intrigue-ish game?

[Yuan-Ti]

I dunno, maybe it is a simple "If it ain't WotC not interested" tendancy I seem to find around here these days.

Funny you should say 'these days'... From the very beginning, Spycraft was panned by WotC fanboys -- many of whom did not really bother to read through even the fastplay rules which were available for free. It was open season for no reason other than Spycraft dared to actually rewrite the d20 rules. It was as if people expected OGL to mean just that you can use "D&D" to publish adventures and campaign settings with house rules. Others just seemed offended that a company would use "D&D" in a non-fantasy setting. Gasp! Horror! Shock! Curse the innovator! Burn the heretic!

Sorry, it was a sore point at the time.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Nor I! Personally, I am starting a new campaign up here now that I have finished my move and will want to run it with more of a lean towards "real world" aspects. I can't see why anyone would use anything else, Spycraft was made for espionage, and to tweak it to that genre requires a minimum of effort (and a little imagination).

I dunno, maybe it is a simple "If it ain't WotC not interested" tendancy I seem to find around here these days.

-W.

Spycraft takes quite a bit of tweaking if you're not particularly interested in gadgets.

Not that I didn't find it useful; I stole quite a few rules from it. I found the GMing a spy scenario pretty good, but that doesn't mean you have to use Spycraft rules for it.

The last sentence is an unfair characterization as well. I stated reasons why I preferred D20 Modern, and none of them involved the words "WotC".

 

[LcKedovan]

The last sentence is an unfair characterization as well. I stated reasons why I preferred D20 Modern, and none of them involved the words "WotC".

Heya (Psi)SeveredHead,

I wasn't specifically pointing a finger at any one post so it may be an unfair characterisation were it aimed at you, which it wasn't . However that said... over the years, in this forum specifically, and on other boards many, many people have had that attitude to anything released after 3e that was not WotC. In those cases you debate with them and usually they have never even played the game they were commenting against... a typical transcript of said thread would be:
<Begin Transcript>

User A: Game X is no good. WotCD20X is much better.

User B: Why do you think that?

User A: Well for one thing Game X Classes are totally Unbalanced!

User C: No they aren't! they are D20 after all, and I have played many games using Game X and everything was fine.

User B: Same here, worked great for me. What did you find unbalanced User A?

User A: Everything. They were just unbalanced.

<Transcript ends with Suicide of User C, and User B checked into hospital with self inflicted headwounds from bashing head on table>


Anyhow, if someone states their reasons, wether I agree or not personally, and has clearly taken a look at both systems it doesn't fall into the realm of my conjecture

-W.