Stargate Campaign: Spycraft or D20 Modern?

[Voneth]

I want to game, not read supplement after supplement that is 85% cool and 15% broken, unclear, contradictory or simply bad.
... So, if I were to get SG-1, I'd have a vague hope of playing it in maybe 2005.
-Fletch

Wow, sounds like your group is very ... structured since it has a "review" policy. With that sort of mind set in charge of your groups, you are not going to get much more than just standard DnD fare.

You group might want to download the guidelines for playing RPGA type games, not that I am saying you should play RPGA games. The guidelines are very strict on what should be used and even those things that might unbalance a game are banned. Star Wars, for example, has an RPGA componet. You can download the guidelines from the 'Net and there is a suppliment that details the star system the campaign takes place in.

One 3rd party publisher, Paradigm Concepts, has an RPGA componet as well. They also offer a RPGA adventure that you can do at home. You have to the module take about 8 hours to finish.

 

[jakspade]

I apologize in advance for the large post.

Well, I play D&D twice a week, maybe 14 to 18+ hours total. These are two different groups, and the thing that glues them together is WotC products. Pretty much anything WotC is allowed (with exceptions, like a few prestige classes and feats, and house ruled spells). However, any 3rd party supplement goes through an unstructured but thorough review, by the DMs and some of the players. And frankly, its time consuming and tiresome. I want to game, not read supplement after supplement that is 85% cool and 15% broken, unclear, contradictory or simply bad.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how close Spycraft is to D20 rules. And the Stargate rpg is going to be self contained. And thanks to the OGL license, you only need to use the PHB for level and feat acquisition charts. Most of the differences in Spycraft can be changed back to d20 rules with little effort. But *IMO*, you're losing a lot of cinematic appeal for the game. And the supplements for Spycraft are *far* from crap. Just my opinion.

3.5e will be the benchmark, but it will be 98% the same as 3.0e, so it really isn't a problem. The DMs in the two groups will likely 'upgrade', but that's about it.

And the Spycraft rules will not change a bit from the 3.5e upgrade.

As for a significantly different system, like the Star Wars system or Spycraft, one or two people having the book is not sufficient. These rule changes are pervasive and profound. Will everyone in the group buy the book? Not likely. So it is not viable. Both groups I play with are 'older gamers': post college, with jobs and mortgages, kids, bills, taxes, responsibilities other than the next keg or random gaming book with cool cover art. Buying some new game system on a whim is just not there any more; not that it ever was a good thing before.

Profound? Pervasive? I don't see those kinds of changes in the Spycraft book. It's 90% 3e, with additions. Action dice, VP/WP, no attack of opportunity, no crit threat, and all players being human (using "departments" as background) is all I can think of that is different about Spycraft to the 3e rules. They've added charts for doing chases, building villians, and a some different feats. Sure, it's a completely different genre and world, but that's what you'd expect from a different game.

It's been close to 11 years since I've played GURPS, 13 for Shadowrun and 9 for Palladium in various genres. Do I miss 'em? No. But I get more gaming in now that I ever did then. Why? I'm not wasting my time figuring stuff out that I'll want to forget in six months. It's why I don't own a diesel car, try to support token ring for my home network, or make up my own invented language with which to speak to the checkout clerk at the grocery store. Some people may not like standards, but they can be very, very useful.

How in the world can you compare Spycraft to 3e like these systems? Spycraft uses the basic OGL rules. Yes, the systems listed above aren't d20, but the comparison here is dubius at best.

I walk into a dealership, and I don't have to lay down $40-50 to take a test drive. It's free. But if I want to try a new system or supplement, I've got to drop more than a few bucks. My 'experiment' Star Wars was an expensive mistake. Sure, everyone thought it was totally cool, but getting everyone to buy the book was a failure, regardless of how rabid the SW fans are in my gaming groups. My wife and I are the only major SG-1 fans in our groups. I'm sure you can predict the likely outcome of an SG-1 'experiment'.

You don't *have* to buy the book to get an idea of how the rules work. You can download the Spycraft Lite rules from the Alderac site. You can download sample characters and adventures from the site too. The Spycraft Lite rules will tell you everything you need to know about running a Spycraft-like game.

The SRD is online. Theoretically, anyone can play using a few choice printed pages, and borrowing their DM's PHB for level-ups. Although SG-1 is going to be partially OGC/d20, will it be available online as the SRD is? It would help but, nope, not holding my breath on that one. Sure it detract from a few sales, but think of it as a test drive. I have a small-font PDF of d20 Modern. It may be missing a couple things, but it mostly gets me there. But it's 220+ pages, and I'm probably not going to print out the whole thing. If we try d20 Modern, we'll print out maybe 30-50 pages total (including multiple copies of some sections), play with a couple laptops at the table (which we normally don't do) and try it out. But if we decide to start playing seriously, I'd make a decent guess that four out of five would buy the book. That is where Star Wars and every other 'licensed game' fails.

Stargate SG-1 will be it's own self contained book. You'll need the PHB for charts. Errata will be available online. What else could you want? I don't think they're going to spend months on a game and then release it as a PDF online. I think it'll be a pretty good book.

I thought I'd be stoked, too, and I was at first. But then I realized that it was a false hope. The further the product is from basic d20 (either modern or fantasy), the much, much less likely I am to ever play it. Inversely geometric. I'd be 1200% better off to buy every episode on DVD with the money and time I'd spend/waste on the RPG version.

Once again, I am confused. Where does it say that Spycraft flys far away from d20 3rd editon? I have no idea where you're getting your information.

Where does this put me? Well, I'm five months into converting the VP/WP damage system from Star Wars to fantasy so that I can try my one group on it, and then perhaps try Star Wars after. So, if I were to get SG-1, I'd have a vague hope of playing it in maybe 2005. Hardly a wise gaming investment. I think I'll buy the Arms and Equipment Guide instead. Or wait until Monte's Arcana Unearthed; it has twenty times the chance of being used at the table.

-Fletch

Dude, easy way to deal with VP/WP: character get's VP from class as hit points. Change crits so that they work exactly as in 3e. That's it. How hard is that?

It's obvious that you have serious issues with anything that isn't strict fantasy d20. But I think the information you're getting isn't completely true. And I think you're losing out on a good game.

Go out to www.gamingreport.com and read some reviews on Spycraft. Search on some more gaming sites (including rpg.net) and read some more. Then decide for yourself if you think the SG-1 game (using Spycraft rules) will be worth getting.

Jak

 

[S'mon]

I'm going to be running a d20 Stargate campaign (more along the lines of the TV show as opposed to the movie).

I'm trying to figure out whether I should use the Spycraft ruleset or the D20 Modern ruleset. Pros and Cons would be greatly appreciated.

-F

I'd suggest Traveller20, since it focuses on experienced military characters. Maybe with elements of other d20 systems.

 

[Kenpo Wolf]

Re: Re: Stargate Campaign: Spycraft or D20 Modern?

I'd suggest Traveller20, since it focuses on experienced military characters. Maybe with elements of other d20 systems.

I agree with S'mon. T20 kicks major arse despite it's minor flaws. It's THE D20 book for any 'hard' scifi game

 

[mkletch]

And the supplements for Spycraft are *far* from crap. Just my opinion.

[...]

Profound? Pervasive? I don't see those kinds of changes in the Spycraft book. It's 90% 3e, with additions. Action dice, VP/WP, no attack of opportunity, no crit threat, and all players being human (using "departments" as background) is all I can think of that is different about Spycraft to the 3e rules. They've added charts for doing chases, building villians, and a some different feats.

I did not make a blanket statement about 3rd party stuff being crap. But you never can tell how something is going to fit into your game until you try it, and sometimes that is too late.

Action dice, VP/WP and no crits are major changes. They are not additions - rather, they replace something already there. Is it necessary to lose crits? Not really - Star Wars used VP/WP fairly well with crits. Sure, you need some extra stuff for a non-fantasy genre, but you can get to a point where you are unnecessarily changing things. As you mentioned, I'll check the Spycraft lite rules on their site; I was unaware they had posted such a thing, and reassuring that they have.

Dude, easy way to deal with VP/WP: character get's VP from class as hit points. Change crits so that they work exactly as in 3e. That's it. How hard is that?

It's obvious that you have serious issues with anything that isn't strict fantasy d20. But I think the information you're getting isn't completely true. And I think you're losing out on a good game.

It's not my experience that VP/WP translates easily into fantasy. Frankly, the whole magic system needs to be reworked. Crits from Star Wars do translate well, though.

I do appreciate all of your feedback. Perhaps I'm just frustrated with what I see as a growth of "d20-not d20": companies publishing all sorts of stuff with only nominal resemblance to d20 to use the market momentum of D&D. The biggest problem with 2E was that there were so many supplements, and they did not balance with each other. WotC has largely fixed this with the D&D rules committee, but instead they have pushed the 'publish anything' out to 3rd parties. Not to say that everything WotC publishes with the D&D label on it is excellent, but it is remarkably consistent.

A guy in my Saturday group just picked up Good and Feats from AEG (creative titles there...), and they fit pretty well into my 85/15 split. Good books, but use with caution. I have some non-trivial issues with Savage Species, but would be more comfortable choosing that Wizards title if I had to pick one of these three as 100% allowed in my games.

 

[Voneth]

Action dice, VP/WP and no crits are major changes. They are not additions - rather, they replace something already there. Is it necessary to lose crits? Not really - Star Wars used VP/WP fairly well with crits. Sure, you need some extra stuff for a non-fantasy genre, but you can get to a point where you are unnecessarily changing things. As you mentioned, I'll check the Spycraft lite rules on their site; I was unaware they had posted such a thing, and reassuring that they have.

I am looking more at this as "How can Mkletch get his group to play AEG' s SG-1 book" in comparsion to selling him on how cool Spycraft is. (Which in my mind has done for modern gaming what DnD did for fantasy gaming, set up a default game format. I love those budget and Mastermind creation rules)

My suggestion is to take out the "crits only by action dice" function of the Action Dice. I read a thread where someone did playtest a DnD game with Action Dice and it seemed that fighters were a little less fun without random crits. That being said, I have played in other d20 games with "Action Dice" and players loved them. WotC themselves has used the concept twice (Star Wars and d20Modern). However, Spycraft is the only such system that touches on criticals. All the others do the same thing, enhance dice rolls, provide some healing - and in Spycraft activate some powerful high level class abilities or enhance the outcome of psionics.

And if you decide that VP/WP is too much a change to handle (essentialy VP is a book keeping mechanic for a subdual damage system.) Then convert it back to hit points and use normal crit rules and you are pretty much back on familar territory. Conversion is pretty much that your VP become HP points and toss out WP.

We don't know yet if SG-1 will include Error rules (critical fumbles for firearms that balance out Critical Successes), but the gist of my message is that I bet the changes in SG-1 from d20 will be easy enough to ignore or easily convert back to DnD enough that you will still get plenty of use out of the book you buy.

If anything, I bet you keep the Background rule. Backgrounds let a player spend skill points on a subplot to his character. If the GM introduces the subplot, the player get XP for responding to it. If the GM can't work the subplot in after a few sessions, the player gets a generic XP bonus and the Background ends. Cool stuff.

It seems to me, however, that your group perfers a fantasy meilu and your challenge may be more the SF nature of the setting and the difference in rules may become more of an excuse to avoid getting out of their rut.

As an aside, SG-1 has surprised me over the years. When I first heard about the series, I thought it was going to be pretty lame. I never got to see the show until reruns and new episodes came on SciFi. I have been pleasently surprised at the quality of writing and inginuity and use of real science in the shows. I even wonder if SG-1 had been a TV series in the 60s with the same quality of acting and writing, would it have outdone Star Trek?

Another aside, Morris originaly gave the game a 5/5. After playing it, he have it a 4/5. So even after the luster of the game wore off, it was still above average.

 

[jakspade]

It's not my experience that VP/WP translates easily into fantasy. Frankly, the whole magic system needs to be reworked. Crits from Star Wars do translate well, though.

The actual mechanics really don't matter. It's how the mechanics fit with the rest of the system. I think VP/WP would fit into a cinematic fantasy world, and I don't think that the magic system would have to be rewritten. But I'm not happy with 3e magic system anyway. I was hoping that when they redid D&D, they would redo the magic system too...

I do appreciate all of your feedback. Perhaps I'm just frustrated with what I see as a growth of "d20-not d20": companies publishing all sorts of stuff with only nominal resemblance to d20 to use the market momentum of D&D. The biggest problem with 2E was that there were so many supplements, and they did not balance with each other. WotC has largely fixed this with the D&D rules committee, but instead they have pushed the 'publish anything' out to 3rd parties. Not to say that everything WotC publishes with the D&D label on it is excellent, but it is remarkably consistent.

I think you're connecting the d20 ruleset too closely with D&D3e. The d20 rules system is much different than the D&D rules.

Jak

A guy in my Saturday group just picked up Good and Feats from AEG (creative titles there...), and they fit pretty well into my 85/15 split. Good books, but use with caution. I have some non-trivial issues with Savage Species, but would be more comfortable choosing that Wizards title if I had to pick one of these three as 100% allowed in my games. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[mkletch]

The actual mechanics really don't matter. It's how the mechanics fit with the rest of the system. I think VP/WP would fit into a cinematic fantasy world, and I don't think that the magic system would have to be rewritten. But I'm not happy with 3e magic system anyway. I was hoping that when they redid D&D, they would redo the magic system too...

Actually, I like the grittier feel of VP/WP, and that is why I'm going to the effort of converting the rest of the game to fit. In addition, I picked up and the Wheel of Time hardcover, because I'm leaning strongly toward that magic system. If not WoT-style channeling, then I'm going to rebuild it from the ground up on my own.

I think you're connecting the d20 ruleset too closely with D&D3e. The d20 rules system is much different than the D&D rules.

DnD3E is the most played of the d20 ruleset games, and by pure momentum and market presence is d20. Sure, there are other games and genres, but you are effectively playing D&D in another setting or genre when playing any d20 game. There is no getting around this, and if you dislike D&D, you probably (though not certainly) do not play d20 games either, whether for levels vs. skills, abstract hit points vs. detailed wounds, the magic system issues, etc.

-Fletch!

 

[mistergone]

DnD3E is the most played of the d20 ruleset games, and by pure momentum and market presence is d20. Sure, there are other games and genres, but you are effectively playing D&D in another setting or genre when playing any d20 game. There is no getting around this, and if you dislike D&D, you probably (though not certainly) do not play d20 games either, whether for levels vs. skills, abstract hit points vs. detailed wounds, the magic system issues, etc.

-Fletch!

I disagree with this. Look at Mutants & Masterminds. It's really NOT just D&D with superpowers. Also, I don't feel Spycraft is D&D with spies. Really, only D20 Modern, as I see it, is basically D&D with modern elements. That's why I don't like D&D Modern... er, D20 Modern.

 

[Ranger REG]

Maybe if they remove multiple attacks due to BAB, then it becomes less like D&D.

I still don't see how d20 Modern can be D&D if you decided NOT to use fantasy FX.

At the same time, Spycraft is a SUPERSPY game. You can even include Chems and Mystics, which, IMHO, fantasy elements, if you play their official Shadowforce Archer setting.

How much does d20 Modern ruleset must deviate without making it so foreign to their huge fanbase? Do you want Wizards to alienate their fanbase? You do remember what brought down TSR, right, MBA student? Publishing too many products for so many little pocket fanbases not enough to support each product line except their cash cow, D&D, which is not even enough to compensate for the huge expense of producing so many failed product lines?