|
1426
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: Contacts question
|
on: June 21, 2007, 08:46:31 AM
|
With failure, the contact either never receives word that you need him, or refuses to respond. He is unavailable for the duration of the current scene. It would seem you are correct, if he fails a networking check, the entire contact is unavailable. That's with failure. The contention is that this doesn't have the same explicit guideline if you are successful, so there is no limit.
|
|
|
|
|
1428
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Contacts question
|
on: June 21, 2007, 07:10:08 AM
|
|
Okay, I know we batted about the contact rules a bit on the old boards... but they are gone now.
Now I am running the LSpy PbP and it has already come up.
My question is this: can you attempt a Networking/Contact check more than once a scene/intel phase? My reading is that the retry entry and an earlier paragraph suggests you can only attempt one contact roll per contact per phase.
But one of the players (our own Mr. Andersen) contends that this only applies to failed rolls. I can't find any text that contradicts him, but it seems to me if that's the intention, it makes contacts too strong and makes it so there is no real reason to ever split your contact levels between two contacts.
|
|
|
|
|
1430
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: Construction
|
on: June 20, 2007, 07:36:12 PM
|
|
You could also use the tables Antilles mentions as a guide, and then make complex tasks to make buildings. That way you could plug into various abilities that affect complex tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
1431
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: The Latest Word - June 19
|
on: June 20, 2007, 11:20:53 AM
|
Since characters can disguise other characters, the current phrasing seems like a literal interpretation would produce oddities. A gorgeous character would suffer a penalty when disguising a different character, which seems to go against the general idea. A gorgeous character could also avoid the penalty if another character makes the disguise check to disguise the gorgeous character.
That's a very good point. Perhaps the wording should specify when the TARGET of a falsify/disguise check.
|
|
|
|
|
1432
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: Rainbow 6 help
|
on: June 20, 2007, 07:50:54 AM
|
Any of these could lead to hostages and, subsequently, hostage negotiations, a Faceman job if ever there was one. A bit more an advocate or (given their "flawless networking" ability) fixer job. A faceman job would be to exchange places with one of the hostages (or if they are good, a lackey) and become an "inside man". 
|
|
|
|
|
1433
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: Security Camera Questions
|
on: June 19, 2007, 07:31:36 PM
|
3. Hmm... I'd say calculate it like a normal 4d6 blast, only you aren't inflicting damage, only measuring range. Everything out to the last increment is affected by the EMP blast.
Basically, log(base 2) of 4d6? IOW, 2-4 increments, weighted high. I'd say take a shortcut and roll a D6: 1 = 2 increments, 2-4 = 3 increments, 5-6 = 4 increments.
|
|
|
|
|
1435
|
Community / License to Improvise / Re: Origin Creation Game 2.0
|
on: June 18, 2007, 03:54:24 PM
|
Shouldn't CTU be a specialty? I like the manhunt/interrogation thing. Though I'm not sure the likes of Chloe or Edgar Stiles deserve an intimidate bonus. Though I guess that's why department specialties aren't mandatory. Speaking of challenges and Chloe, anyone want to take on Neurotic (talent)? 
|
|
|
|
|
1436
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: Firarms in a near future setting
|
on: June 18, 2007, 03:12:51 PM
|
So what we might do with a lot of near future settings, and even some future ones, would be to move the *names* of weapons down the Caliber scale, replacing the highest ones with new *names*, but keep the actual stats intact.
Hmmm. I was sort of viewing the near future version of the "big budget" quality as the means to do this while leaving the tables the same. Add new, slick weapons and put them in the appropriate place on the table and let the increased calibers represent the better availability of guns (or whatever other sort of tech you want to purchase.)
|
|
|
|
|
1438
|
Legacy Games / Classic Spycraft / Re: [SURVEY] For customers of the 1.0 PDFs...
|
on: June 18, 2007, 01:07:50 PM
|
|
(shrug) I have all but 3 of the 1.0 books in dead tree (the two militaries books and gentleman's agreement). I actually like having both PDF and Dead Tree for anything I use a lot, for a few reasons: 1) I like having hardcopies for my own use, but like printing out pages for the players (for example, some of the old headline-mockups are great player handouts) 2) I also like being able to copy and paste text into documents I am working on. If I want to steal an organization or a threat from the old books, I could just copy in the pertinent info into my game notes.
I'd say that given this, the PDFs actually seem like it would make it easier for me to reuse the material.
|
|
|
|
|
1439
|
Community / License to Improvise / Re: Minions, Inc.
|
on: June 18, 2007, 12:55:12 PM
|
EUROPEAN COMMONWEALTH Icon (Standard NPC — 72 XP): Init VI; Atk III; Def VII; Resilience IV; Damage Save: III; Competence: VI; Skills: Impress VI, Sense Motive VI; SZ M; Spd 30 ft.; Wealth: VII; Weapons: 1 x Caliber I handgun or melee weapon; Gear: 2 x Caliber III; Vehicle: 1 x Caliber II; Qualities: feats (Charmer, Gorgeous, The Look), specialty (Celebrity), superior attribute (Cha +4).
Shouldn't the Icon have the Icon specialty? 
|
|
|
|
|
1440
|
Products / Spycraft 2.0 / Re: WoF: Room for the "Martial Arts Tournament" genre?
|
on: June 18, 2007, 08:41:55 AM
|
But all that's beside your point, which is tournaments! Being an old world throwback faction, the NTD adheres to a lot of the same traditions that fueled your listed inspirations. They host tournaments as a matter of course, hosted in remote mountain retreats and other areas. Duels are held for status, to satisfy grudges, decide matters of hierarchy, and for a variety of other reasons. Probably just what you're looking for!  Sounds like... Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, there's another group in the setting that hosts melee and unarmed combats as a matter of tradition, though they tend to be a lot more infrequent, personal, and bloody. Scott wrote that section, and it's about the group we aren't talking about until the book comes out.  
|
|
|
|
|
|