It's been a while since I've seen them, but psionics were handled a lot like special actions.  Effectively, a character of one of the three psi classes had a bunch of nifty gadgets that pulled off a common battery.  That said, they could get NASTY if given time to prepare, and nothing stopped them from using normal equipment as well.  Again, it's been a LONG time since I looked at that stuff.

Meh.  I'd rather have a point buy or slot system, personally.  Iron Heroes had a neat concept of background feats.  You had two background feats; if you selected both picks on a single feat, you avoided the negative half of the feat.

I'd offer this variant: two racial slots.  Basic stuff from each race in the first slot, with the full bonuses if you pick both slots in the same race.  Possibly even benefits from three or more slots if you want to add a feat that improves your racial slot picks.  Why do I like this option?  It forces the designers to consider the bonuses of being human. 

But honestly, as long as the system is balanced, I don't mind... no, wait a moment, I do.  Races have long been one of the tools of a power gamer.  'I can do this because I'm X and you can never do it because you're not X.'  I'm sorry, but the lack of this BS is one of the things that appeals to me about the new Spycraft system.

Okay, I know I missed something there.  Did you actually suggest that a vampire can STOP being an undead?

Player:  Aha, vampire!  I turn thee!
Vampire:  Sorry, converted by DNA experimentation.  [BITE]
Player:  Argh!

Personally, I'd just buy a damage [holy] gadget, cone radius for -1 dice damage, affects only [undead] for +1 dice damage, and some battery picks for extra charges.  Which of the two are the undead going to be more afraid of? 

The problem I've ALWAYS had with turning the undead is IT DOESN'T WORK as a long term solution.  The undead is still out there, and now it's pissed.  And how many times have people tried to turn something only to watch the cross catch on fire or warp in their hand?  Congrats, you've expended an action and done nothing useful.

[one]

Nah, make it someone who should have remained buried in holy ground.  When [villain] gets free, it also breaks the enchantment keeping the Gargoyles in their stone form.  Yay, we're free... what do you mean THAT got free also?

If you really want to go all Nemesis with it, make [villain] the one who destroyed a clutch of their eggs, and they were on site fighting him when the original curse hit.

So any transformation of the site can be accomplished through [villain] changing things to their liking before that first night, when (s)he suddenly re-encounters the gargoyles.  (Being conscious the whole time, it's been centuries, and the villain's been concentrating on escape.  Minor details do get lost in the making of great works.)

Free villain, free transformation, I think the whole thing wraps up nice.

So:
Race: Gargoyle Package (common stuff)
Origin: Type of Gargoyle (composition)
Talent: Shape/Form of Gargoyle
If I'm understanding correctly?

I think I've had too much caffine or not enough sleep, probably both.  I've got random ideas firing off, many of which lead me to non-gargoyle places.

I don't think we've had a war that WASN'T hairy.  And before people get started, I consider Vietnam a war, whether it was declared or not.

Have you considered letting your players have input?  I mean, they want to play Gargoyles, why not let them help define what a gargoyle is or isn't?  You will also find things that some gargoyles have but others don't.  These are racial feats.  The principal advantages are less work and the players feel involved.

I think the major concern here is being certain that the human player feels 'balanced' with the gargoyles.  If he's always sitting around at the base, this can't be good for the game.  (Unless he's the player who usually plays your Netrunner/Hacker/Lone Wolf, in which case he may be HAPPY doing this.  I don't pretend to understand how, but there are a minority of players who enjoy this sort of role.)

Coming to it, I may be mistaken, but most of your people seem to be SOCIALIZER type role players.  These are the people who are quite at home in games where they don't even have to touch the dice.  The sorts of people who have the villains going 'are we going to actually fight, or just watch the boss swap insults with them?'.  If this is the case, you'll also want to be careful to provide the gargoyles lots of things to talk to. 

I hate to recommend it, but you may need to borrow Jen's Gargoyle DVDs (or VCR tapes) to familiarize yourself with the sort of things your players expect.  Your players will be thinking in terms of 'today's episode' rather than in terms of 'current mission', but the two are similar enough that you'd have to be looking to notice the difference. 

I had more ideas, but I'm not used to scribbling down notes in mid-post.  Thinking too fast, sorry. 

I like.  I like very much.  The glasses give it just the right twinge of realistic imperfection.  

Is there a copyright, or is it public domain?

So:
Knights of America?
Paladins of the Free?  (Sons of the Free, if I recall my history.)
Or just the battle regalia of the President of the United States?

Well, I've experienced it four ways:
1) GC has an idea percolating, and it just HAS TO GET OUT, so approach players
2) As GC, I've received 'interventions' from my players, usually about house rules
3) As a player, I've been part of a 'discussion group' contesting what seems an arbitrary (and unfair) ruling
4) As a player, the GC has sprung 'game improvements', both suggested and mandatory.

As a species, we like being surprised and interested; we also like things stable and predictable.  The balance is an individual thing, learned rather than inherited.

The root here seems to be communication, specifically the lack of.  Your players are talking to each other about what they want, and finally decided to ask you if you would run it.

A)  You may be hurting because your players don't want to play the game you want to run.
B)  You may be hurting because your players wanted to develop the game but didn't feel they could or should include you in the initial discussion, as if they didn't trust you.
C)  You may feel threatened, that the game is becoming Jen's game rather than yours.
D)  You may be entirely cool with this, and just asking for opinions to socialize and get to know us all better.
E)  It could be none of the above, and I just can't think straight this morning.

Which issue did you intend to address, Auld?

PS.  Sorry if I'm blunt or rude or babbling like an alien thing.  I'm catching up on sleep from Tuesday (five days ago).  I've found that if you ignore it, it sometimes comes in for a snuggle and to remind you it is your duty as a worshipper to feed it saucers of warm milk. 

Well, see.. there's a very distinct difference here though.  Sengoku, if I recall right, was an 'add-on' book.  A supplement to the various games, if you will.  FantasyCraft is a direct competitor of WOTC's D&D. 

Even being an add-on isn't a guarantee.  Back a bit, there was a deity add-on called Primal Order.  Among the things that torpedoed it were the lawsuits from companies that had 'conversion rules' in the back.  Something about profit infringement.  Anyway, my point is that in today's lawsuit-happy economy, even the OGL might not protect as much as we'd like it to. 

Also, I'm not sure if you shouldn't drop half the levels when converting from DnD.  Spycraft characters are VERY flexible and extremely hoss compared to DnD classes.  That said, I've found re-envisioning to be a rewarding experience.  Not that I'd do it every game session, but it isn't really that bad.

The one time I ran something like this, it was a pleasure to match the 'villains' up against the heroes.  Just watching their clones and seeing how they could play to their strengths (and proof that those strengths worked well together) was an educational experience. 

So your question is - where do you go from here?
1)  Take it personal.  The putty absorbed some of their feelings.  The clones call Mom to wish her will, try to hit on the PC's girlfriend, spot the PCs at the grocery store (possibly due to an intentional ambush), and such events.  The key here is that the clones may be trying to live the PCs lives, and may manage it better than the PC themself does.

2)  Well it sure LOOKED like you...  The clones, having had surgery to correct any 'Xerox effects', attempt to requisition supplies from HQ.  This may reduce number of gear picks, and certainly makes it harder for field requisitions from the Agency.  Maybe the clone's wish list reveals the next step in their plan.

3)  There can be only one!  Determined to be the only copy of themselves, they abduct a geneticist to both fix their 'Xerox errors', and a formula to cause such errors in the DNA of the original.  Then, once that water is properly flowing uphill, they can just walk into the Agency, accuse 'themselves', and have free reign in the Agency while the originals are signed up for interrogation, brainwashing, and/or disection.

4)  Freedom isn't free.  The clones weren't supposed to go on a criminal rampage; they're just trying to finance their escape from their parent organizaition.  This means they are hunted not only by the Agency but by the Mastermind.  But if they act JUST RIGHT, they can pit the PCs and the Mastermind against each other while they escape...

I know I should provide more ideas, but it's so late that it's early over here.

Spycraft IS a little over the top.  Take a look at the source material.  From Undercover Blues to 007, spies have always been seen as just a bit more competent than normal people.  Honestly, there were a few incidences of 'normal' spies, but they also involved some of the most incompetent villains.

But compared to superheroes and wizards whipping up blazing balls of fire without working up a sweat?  Nah, SpyCraft seems normal enough to me.

And outdoor travel.  I like this, it's turning into something with multiple re-use potential.  Now we just apply modifiers for 'how many encounters will you have in a private jet' versus 'can you spot the tiny cave from way up there' and we've got a reconnaisance matrix (or other cool name). 

I like.  I like very much.  Does away with the need for a map, yet still allows moments like, 'What are you doing this far EAST of Risterol?'

Nah.  Advocates like me will Cheap Shot the wisdom and Tire someone until they fall.  (Okay, Advocates like ME will hit them in the face with pepper spray, hold them with a staff trick, THEN Cheap Shot the Wisdom, Tire someone for the +2 bonus from Determined, do a Called Shot to bypass the armor for the hypo filled with (whatever chemical's handy), then Tire them until they drop.

By this time, the rest of the group has downed the other 31 enemies, bound their wounds, and is taking bets on whether they get their first nonlethal damage recovery before I down my first opponent.  But that's okay; Advocates shine in other areas.

Now I need to check the rules on Cheap Shot... [badly mangled evil laugh]

I'd call that a feat of GC skill; I've tried it before, but never managed to pull it off.  Honestly, I'd need the right group and theme music before trying it again. 

But in general: If your players like and expect something, provide it for them. 

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the Montage song from Team America, I was just the other day accusing it of having only one song.   

Sorry if this is the newbie comment, I'm coming from D&D and haven't made the full transition.

How common is ability damage?  Cause if it's as rare as in D&D, then none of these should be considered a 'full' Achilles Heel.  Also, if the Achilles Heel isn't obvious or common sense, the players may never discover it.  In a game under first ed Spycraft, Stryk-9 had minions vulnerable to biochemical weapons (INCLUDING TEAR GAS); we discovered this when we dropped a tear gas grenade to cover our retreat.

Honestly, the whole suggestion makes me leery of such things as Champions' vulnerability to alien magic.  The player took it as a Common vulnerability, and then quit the campaign because alien magic became Common.  (As did some other damage types, the other players either coped or bought the disadvantages back to where they REALLY wanted them.)  The point I'm trying to make here is our job as GC is to make certain that we aren't giving hand outs - limitations actually limit, disadvantages are disadvantageous, etc.