Will Spycraft dominate d20 Modern?

[Committed Hero]

You'd have to ask Charles Ryan what the point is. I suspect it's to compensate for the greater number of damage points characters have (i.e. VP+WP > HP), and also perhaps to account for the use of armour that reduces damage instead of making it harder to hit (assuming that the "user of a VP/WP system" was actually a Spycraft player who bought the d20M UMF, since cross-RPG purchasers were apparently a significant market for the original UMF).

Plus at the time UMF was released, there were stats for melee weapons in Spycraft, but the Modern Arms Guide might not have been released yet.

 

[AscentStudios]

Hey folks,

I've come to answer some questions/concerns expressed here re: 2.0 - and maybe dispell some rumors YMMV.

Does anyone know what the plan is for the Spycraft line to support other genres (as in supplements)? If Spycraft will be able to support a broader range of modern games, I for one would love to see a company really get behind a sci-fi (or series of sci-fi) treatment of Spycraft.

Yes. These are built into the core book. IIRC, there are a dozen different treatments, ranging from Westerns to Near-Future, using the core classes and manipulating play using campaign qualities. This book is a much stronger toolkit for modern games of all stripes.

As for sci-fi...we don't plan to disappoint

This is just my personal opinion....but with AEG, I feel like every setting --- Theah, Rokugan, Shadowforce: Archer --- has an impossibly convoluted backstory spread out over a dozen or more supplements, with far more attention paid to the doings of various NPC movers and shakers that to the PCs. And the metaplot is driven by collectable card games or something like that, right?

My own personal opinion is that AEG puts together some pretty decent RPGs with great settings, but linking them to CCGs with all the metaplot that entails often makes their settings all but unusable to me. Looks like Spycraft is taking the same approach - judging by the fact that "www.spycraftrpg.com" takes me to a page labelled "Spycraft Collectible Card Game" with RPG info as an afterthought - and as such it is of pretty much zero interest to me. YMMV.

That model has changed in 2.0. We now have a "two book" setup - all official books use 2.0 + another book to work, rather than the "collectable rules" model some have accused us of Spycraft 2.0 has precisely zero metaplot - it is a toolkit only. World on Fire, the first supplement, is set in the world of the CCG, but is really the espionage topic book, covering tradecraft and genre appropriate material, plus an alternate history using the CCG world. No metaplot outside that book, either - the CCG storyline is almost entirely absent in WoF because, as Patrick Kapera has noted, that storyline is about characters not the world. So fears of metaplot on the level of Shadowforce Archer are pretty much unfounded - we learned our lesson on that one.

I never heard of Spycraft and I don't intend to buy the book either. Not even 2.0. I won't pay $40 for a book that I could reproduce on my own.

This ain't your daddy's d20 500 pages of serious, ground-up re-examination of what worked for us and what didn't went into this one. I daresay that this is a pretty new entry into the d20 market.

What about future supplements? Rather than focusing a licensed property like Stargate, show how Spycraft can be massaged (as d20 Future did to d20 Modern) to supporting a sci-fi genre (Space Opera, Cyberpunk, Apocalyptic, etc.). If Spycraft rules can be adapted to supporting alternative genres (Pulp, Technothriller, Occult, gritty military, near-future sci-fi, far-future sci-fi, etc. as examples) I think we could have a much stronger base for growing a d20 fan base that isn't focused on Fantasy.

I think you will be pleased with Spycraft 2.0's direction. This is what we hope to do, and I know there are 3rd parties following suit. I am finishing up the first 3rd party supplement for 2.0, which is definately NOT espionage-based, and the engine works quite well

Personally, I rather like the toolkit approach of D20 Future. It doesn't need to be so in-depth that there's no wiggle room for my own setting style.

You'd be happy with our approach, then, too. "License to Improvise" was a team motto going into this book - we fully expect players to build their own campaigns and tweak to their table's desires. There are many many tools that allow you to tweak and change as you like, while retaining the core mechanics - campaign qualities, for instance, let you modularly (and easily) shift most aspects of the game to fit the scene, mission or campaign as you like. A balanced yet freeform NPC creation system lets you make baddies as weak or badassed as you like. Gamemasters are definately empowered in this edition.

I hope they fixed all the problems 1E had, though.

Gods, I hope so too. To say we re-evaluated from the ground-up would not be an exaggeration.

Spycraft will have a good core audience, but I doubt we'll see AEG take over the modern gaming market if for nothing else than the more stringent hold over their IP and their more spy-centric focus.

I don't expect anybody to relieve WotC of their gaming crown - indeed, 99% of the companies out there simply could never afford to compete - but I think there will be a little more wiggle room for y'all to try something different with Spycraft. Frinstance, there is one real dedicated "spy" type (the Snoop) who works equally well as a surveillance expert, creepy voyeur, or terrorist. And as for 3rd parties interested in doing work with the system, I would suggest contacting Patrick Kapera (pkaperaATalderacDOTcom) - I think you might be surprised at his willingness to accept new and cool ideas for products.

Either way, more choice for gamers is good.

I agree 100%. I'm a closet fanboy of Grim Tales, myself - one day, if I can break my players from Spycraft, we'll actually get to play

Agreed about the shaky nature of AEG's web presence, but hopefully if the RPG sells well it won't be so overshadowed by the CCG and who knows, it might actually get its own website...

I agree that this is likely the case. The CCG is the new and shiny product compared to a 3 year old RPG. And in simple economics - and this follows with all game companies - CCGs simply outsell RPGs. By a LOT, typically.

I guess I would term it heroic. Not so gritty that combat must be avoided entirely, but certainly not Hollywood action-hero style. Say, like 24 as opposed to Alias. This has been my reluctance to convert to d20 Modern thus far. I've read where the MDT keeps combat lethal, but I still have visions of the D&D mindset where high-level characters have no fear of mundane threats.

I believe this is right where Spycraft sits at default - the threat of death is actually here, thanx to VP/WP - but it's not likely. With the campaign qualities you can certainly make combat much deadlier, quick. And that's a very simple plug in from the GM chapter.

If this is the case it would appeal to me a bit more... I did not like (at all) the fact that if you wanted extra feats you have to take the Soldier/Fighter class... if everyone gets bonus feats (not just Class Features/Abilities) that might be cool...

You want bonus feats in every class? OK. We'll do it just for you (don't tell anybody I said so) We addressed the dearth of feats in some 1.0 classes because the fans told us that's what they wanted. There is a *lot* more choice this time around as far as "archetypes" go - every class has bonus feats in 1-4 trees, many have 7-10 selectable abilities that appear around Levels 5 or 6 to let you further customize. The result is you can take 2 10th level characters, with the same class and same stats, and have them look quite different in specialties and abilities, while still having a "class" to work from as a platform.

One of the best things about D20 Modern is someone can take a weapon like an unarmed strike and actually kick butt with it.

We made unarmed combat - the equivalent of standard d20's Improved Unarmed Strike - a proficiency (which all characters receive 2-6 of at 1st level and gain as a level-dependant benefit). That means you can get it if you want it, no questions asked. Don't even get me started on the new version of Martial Arts - you can hold your own against a standard pistol-user most any day. This is what happens when you have a black belt on your design team

Thanks for getting to the end of this post. Needless to say, the 2.0 Design Team is painfully excited by the product. We know it won't be for everybody but I think there's a fair share of things we've changed that should excite the fanbase and address the things you have brought before us over the last few years.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Thanks for stopping in, Alex. While Spycraft 2.0 is on the back-burner for me, it has moved up into the top position of my watch list for when I have a little extra money. You answered a lot of the questions and concerns here, even a few I hadn't voiced yet.

Thanks again,
Kane

 

[PJ-Mason]

What Kanegrundar said!

Where i had little interest in SC II before your post, or at best the equivalent of a 7th round pick, i can now say that i am at least interested in what you guys did with the remake. I might go as high as 3rd or 4th round pick.

 

[Azgulor]

Thanks for the info Alex. Based on everything I was seeing from the previews made me think that Spycraft could suit my group's needs. The additional info about your future plans for the line is great to hear as well.

Spycraft 2.0 was already a must-buy for me. Now it's a must-buy that I need NOW.

Azgulor

 

[Cergorach]

I personally feel that the d20 Modern rules are bland and have a 'sterile' feel to them, i'm not particulary exited when creating a PC or a NPC. As someone else said, SpyCraft has a 'sexy' rules set, i'm exited when creating a PC and all the mechanics look exciting. SC2.0 has the potential to go beyond d20 Modern, especially if the 2 book combo turns out well. I'm not saying that it will outsell d20 Modern, WotC has a superior distribution network, not to mention a large marketing department. But it doesn't have to outsell d20 Modern to be successful, it just needs to sell enough to make the next book profitable enough to print it in full color with a hard cover...

 

[The Shaman]

I love d20 Modern like a fat kid loves Little Debbies, for many of the reasons that others don't: the modularity of the base classes, the lack of a strong setting, the toolkit approach of most of the supplements (save the execrable d20 Past).

Moreover I have no problem with hit points (MDT = 10 + damage if I want to increase the level of lethality - no VP/WP graft required, thanks!) or combat in the rules as written - I'm looking for fast adventure, not exacting detail that I can add in or take out through flavor description as desired.

While I've gladly filched a few very good bits from Spycraft Lyte for my Modern games, I don't see making a wholesale system change anytime soon, if for no other reason than I'm just not willing to spend the money when I can happily play with what I have now. I can build pretty much any game I want to play using d20 Modern as written, from gritty military to modern fantasy to near-future sci fi to swashbuckling past, and I don't have to spend another dime to do it.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I love d20 Modern like a fat kid loves Little Debbies...

Welcome to my sig file, SHaman!

Hilarious.

Kane

 

[Ranger REG]

I love d20 Modern like a fat kid loves Little Debbies, for many of the reasons that others don't: the modularity of the base classes, the lack of a strong setting, the toolkit approach of most of the supplements (save the execrable d20 Past).

Personally, for a new game, it needs a setting just to let casual gamers play in the same way D&D had Greyhawk. Still hoping for a Star*Drive setting for d20 Future.

 

[solomoncane]

If you prefer the Grim Tales version of d20 Modern (which I do), note that it already borrows a little from Spycraft 1.0 (if you have GT, you won't see it in the OGL; see updated OGL on Bad Axe website).

Given the "default" nature of WOTC's Modern, I suspect many may mine SC2 for good stuff to port over, but I wouldn't expect a wholesale switchover.