Critiques or Why nothing is perfect

[NezMaster]

Recent (false) accusations of being a cheerleader squad have caused me to wonder where other people stand on things regarding Spycraft and it's various imperfections. I'm basically wondering what things you'd do differently, or what house rules you use to make the situation what you like. i'm also curious as to how people feel about directions.
I think if these things are pointed out respectfully, it can give Crafty some insight into it's audience.
Though spycraft is now in my top three favorite rpg's, there are reasons it's not at number one, and things I'm concerned about. Many of these things are not Crafty's fault, most of them won't change, and some of them are positive business decisions (PBD), but still I thought I'd share the downsides.

1> D20.  --- I'm still not even a d20 fan, even dressed up and decorated as crafy is, it's roots don't escape me.
1a> Level based. I really don't like level based systems. Point based systems are much more fun for me, and fit a more logical sense. "I've been honing my medical skills" or "I'm taking a driver training course" makes much more sense to me than "I'm suddendly better at everything.
1b> Class based. Star Wars Legacy d20 almost had me. They were really close to being classless, but they blew it and kept the classes, even though they don't need them anymore.  Archetypes are ok, but the best archetypes are the ones that bend it, and i'm perfectly capable of thinking of sterotypes on my own.

2> House rules: Actually the only house rules I've seen a need to use are big budget because I don't like the idea of bond style secret agents dressed like wino's. Other than that, I've left things as they are. I considered Blockbuster, but I don't like the fact that it alters the scale for intruder, so i didn't.
2b> Experience: I do add experiece for the threat levels being higher than the character, to give the lower level character some compensation for being slightly overshadowed, and just to give them some chance of catching up a little.

3> Quality Control: As has been mentioned elsewhere, I still got hit with Mongoose's infamous binding and book issues. When myself and my local game store owner checked out the books he had stocked on his shelves (3), we found that none of them had binding glue on them, and they were all just waiting to fall apart. This does not bode well for the future. We're hoping he got a 'bad batch' and it's not universal. I've worked in the book binding department for the Louisville Free Public Library before, so I do have some idea of what i'm talking about. This is cheap on Mongooses part, and it's a shame Crafty gets dragged into it.

4> World on Fire was 70% things I couldn't use. It was still a good book, and what I could use, I loved, but I still haven't read through all of the first three chapters, because what I've read isn't that useful to me.

5> I don't like that they chose to end Living Spycraft immediately before gaining an influx of new people by actually publishing the books. I do not have play oppurtunities at home, and I just felt like the timing was off. If they could have held out until after the books were published to see what happened, I'd have been less upset about it. The fact that they are concentrating on living fantasy games, just takes me  to point GBD 1.


GBD: The following are good business decisions that I hate. I'm allowed to hate reality if I want. I suppose at some level I'm still glad crafty is doing them, because I know how hard it is for a small game company, but I just really wish they didn't have to.

GBD1> PDF's. - I don't like pdf's. I want books. I don't have a laptop, I'm clumsy with computers, and I hate paying for something that seems sort of 'unreal' to me. I'm glad they offer them as an alternative, but there are a number of books available only as pdf's and that makes me sad. On the other hand, these are small books that are too small for print editions, and they'd proably never see print anyway. Still it feels like energy that could be funneled into books.

GBD2> Fantasycraft -- There are seventy two bijillion fantasy games on the market. At least two of them are more to my liking than I expect Fantasycraft will be, and I'm really tired of fantasy anyway.
There are basically zero spy games on the market, outside of Spycraft, so there is no product support anywhere other than what they produce. This neccesary distraction takes away from the support I want and desire for a game I have no other outlets for. I wish it was realistic to say "let them go to one of the other gajillion fantasy games for support - They don't NEED crafty" but the reality is there's a gajillion fantasy games for a REASON and Crafty should go where the money is. It's still frustrating, especially when I learn EVERYTHING I care about from the company is on hold until FantasyCraft debuts, which I expect will be at least a year away.

GBD3> I really wish there was a realistic way to project dates. I understand why it's not, and it's better not to give them then to be 7 months late, but I'd love to get some feel for how long I'm going to wait for things. Especially since the first books took SOOO long, I fear about 1 year inbetween big projects, meaning I might wait 1 year before they even move past the fantasy book, and 3 more years for 10KB. And really, becuase the crafty people ADMIT they have no idea how long thins will take, theres no way to asuage my fears on this.

So what would you like to see being done differently (reasonable or not)? What doesn't work for you? When do you decide to break out rpg's that are not spycraft and why?

[Ezram]

Speaking of which, in a Blockbuster game, what happens when the Intruder reaches Evasion V?

I agree on the binding issue too. My copy of World on Fire already had easily bent edges and a slightly "loose" binding, and I saw a copy in a seperate store with the same issue. Finally, at a gaming shop that carried it, it wasn't looking too good either. Coincidence? Maybe, but i'm starting to doubt it.

[meadicus]

Interesting comments, let me throw my 2 cents in also.

1a> Level based. I really don't like level based systems. Point based systems are much more fun for me, and fit a more logical sense. "I've been honing my medical skills" or "I'm taking a driver training course" makes much more sense to me than "I'm suddendly better at everything.

I've hated this in every other leveling game until I met wounds/vitality and the crafty NPC system. Because the NPC system effectively abstracts out level the bad guys are always powered relative to the players. Because of this I have to say the only real purpose I see to having varies tracks of BAB, saves, etc... it for multiclassing.

1b> Class based. Star WArs d20 almost had me. They were really close to being classless. Archetypes are ok, but the best archetypes are the ones that bend it, and i'm perfectly capable of thinking of sterotypes on my own.

In principal I agree but the classes in spycraft are so flexible (mainly because of the huge amounts of feats) I find I have no concerns with this issue.

2> House rules: Actually the only house rules I've seen a need to use are big budget because I don't like the idea of bond style secret agents dressed like wino's. Otehr than that, I've left things as they are. I considered Blockbuster, but I don't like the fact that it alters the scale for intruder, so i didn't.

If you're using a campaign quality then I don't see it as a house rule, crafty put those in there because they knew people wanted to alter the flavour of their games.

2b> Experience: I do add experiece for the threat levels being higher than the character, to give the lower level character some compensation for being slightly overshadowed, and just to give them some chance of catching up a little.

I do this too. More I always thought it was an important quality of the core d20 XP system that lower level people got more XP so that if someone misses a few games (or in D&D dies and gets raised) and gets left behind they can catch up.

So what would you like to see being done differently (reasonable or not)? What doesn't work for you? When do you decide to break out rpg's that are not spycraft and why?

The only issue I've ever had with spycraft (and many other games) is impossibilities. Namely when the character wants to do something but the system says it's "impossible", I would much rather "very very hard". This comes up in spycraft in one key place, movement.

With movement I massively understand the desire to rid the system of attacks of opportunity, they don't allow for the mesh of melee and ranged combat required for a multi-genre game. But it means if you're standing next to someone effectively a set of invisible walls spring up stopping you running away. I understand that running a way may be a 'bad idea' for the character but that's what attacks of opportunity do, model the bad idea. I want characters to be able to make bad ideas if they want to. What if the character needs to run out of combat to switch off the doomsday device, he's going to risk any 'bad stuff' to get there.

But it is my 'license of improvise' On occasion I have allowed character movement and used AoO. Why not? It's my table. Which brings me to my conclusion. I love spycraft. Picking it up made me for the first time feel I had a system where I was in charge of my game and not the book.

I was going to write more praise with reason but I realized it was getting OT and I would write an essay.

[NezMaster]

Speaking of which, in a Blockbuster game, what happens when the Intruder reaches Evasion V?

The official response is that sometimes campaign qualities to alter class abilities and make them less (or more) effective, and that it wasn't really possible to lay out those possiblities. In short, if you choose to use them, you take your chances....which is fine, that's also what house rules are for.

[Ezram]

So they get Evasion V as normal?

[NezMaster]

If you're using a campaign quality then I don't see it as a house rule, crafty put those in there because they knew people wanted to alter the flavour of their games.

Well when the question about intruder and blockbuster came up, the response was that they had not been texted out to insure balance within them. That they did alter the use of some abilities. I therefore sum them up as a concise list of optional "house rules". I like that they have done this, but that's still how I see it.

2b> Experience: I do add experiece for the threat levels being higher than the character, to give the lower level character some compensation for being slightly overshadowed, and just to give them some chance of catching up a little.

I do this too. More I always thought it was an important quality of the core d20 XP system that lower level people got more XP so that if someone misses a few games (or in D&D dies and gets raised) and gets left behind they can catch up.

So what do you do. I decided that giving the full multiple was a bit much. I add 100 extra per missing level to the base points. not much, but enough to curb the edge a bit.

So what would you like to see being done differently (reasonable or not)? What doesn't work for you? When do you decide to break out rpg's that are not spycraft and why?

The only issue I've ever had with spycraft (and many other games) is impossibilities. Namely when the character wants to do something but the system says it's "impossible", I would much rather "very very hard". This comes up in spycraft in one key place, movement.

With movement I massively understand the desire to rid the system of attacks of opportunity, they don't allow for the mesh of melee and ranged combat required for a multi-genre game. But it means if you're standing next to someone effectively a set of invisible walls spring up stopping you running away. I understand that running a way may be a 'bad idea' for the character but that's what attacks of opportunity do, model the bad idea. I want characters to be able to make bad ideas if they want to. What if the character needs to run out of combat to switch off the doomsday device, he's going to risk any 'bad stuff' to get there.

But it is my 'license of improvise' On occasion I have allowed character movement and used AoO. Why not? It's my table. Which brings me to my conclusion. I love spycraft. Picking it up made me for the first time feel I had a system where I was in charge of my game and not the book.

Actually I don't know the rules well enough to know you couldn't run away if you had to/needed to. so I pretty much just allow it.

I was going to write more praise with reason but I realized it was getting OT and I would write an essay.

Besides, it's not supposed to be the praise thread. I had to stop myself too, in some of my missives. It's hard to be critical about things we really like sometimes, but I also think it's important.

[meadicus]

2b> Experience: I do add experiece for the threat levels being higher than the character, to give the lower level character some compensation for being slightly overshadowed, and just to give them some chance of catching up a little.

I do this too. More I always thought it was an important quality of the core d20 XP system that lower level people got more XP so that if someone misses a few games (or in D&D dies and gets raised) and gets left behind they can catch up.

So what do you do. I decided that giving the full multiple was a bit much. I add 100 extra per missing level to the base points. not much, but enough to curb the edge a bit.

I give the full amount (TL x base XP) to everyone. Those who are lower level get a greater proportion of what they need to level up, thus helping them catch up.

.. snip ... movement rant ... see above

Actually I don't know the rules well enough to know you couldn't run away if you had to/needed to. so I pretty much just allow it.

You can only withdraw or 5-ft step or Acrobatics/Tumble away, but only until you step next to anyone else. So there are plenty of options, just not the 'be stupid' one.

[Ezram]

I wasn't fond of characters being unable to use their Strength modifiers on improvised weapons, but that was easy enough to houserule around with Gentry's help.

[Agent 333]

Lets see...

I use the Gear system as-is, though I'm desperately waiting for the Big Score to come along. I dislike the Gear system, my players loathe it.

I don't use a rule unless a player or NPC option specifically relies on it, or a player asks about it. For example, I usually handwave away the extra effects of most damage types unless I want to drive home a point or have an NPC with qualities that add stress damage and a flamethrower...

I understand that the Crafty guys all have dayjobs and can't work on Spycraft 24/7, but that doesn't stop me from wishing they'd get product out a little bit faster. I'd be happy with 1 product a month, even at Fragile Minds type size, if I could be guarunteed it every single month.

[Psion]

The only issue I've ever had with spycraft (and many other games) is impossibilities. Namely when the character wants to do something but the system says it's "impossible", I would much rather "very very hard". This comes up in spycraft in one key place, movement.

With movement I massively understand the desire to rid the system of attacks of opportunity, they don't allow for the mesh of melee and ranged combat required for a multi-genre game. But it means if you're standing next to someone effectively a set of invisible walls spring up stopping you running away. I understand that running a way may be a 'bad idea' for the character but that's what attacks of opportunity do, model the bad idea.

Wow... its rare that I see someone miss attacks of opportunity. 

That said... see acrobatics/tumble. It's not impossible to move past someone, even per RAW. (However, if you use skill caps, it's pretty tricky except in the simplest cases unless you actually have some ranks in the skill.)


To the general topic... I like class based systems and particularly like SC 2.0's implementation. I never bought the notion that everything going up at once was bad modeling (non-combat skills going up from combat is another matter, but not a problem with SC since its XP aren't directly combat related.) IRL, often we usually exercise different skills when pursuing different professions job; having only one skill go up at once is just as inaccurate a model. Further, classes and levels are more than just a model of creating a character to taste; they are a technique of creating a functional character and padding against min-maxing. Finally, origins are a logical and effective method to add back flexibility into the system without engendering some of the min-maxing that comes with point gen systems.

Things that I don't particularly care for in SC 2.0:
1) While good modeling, I think tracking initiative changes is probably too much to ask.
2) Gear. I mean I like it conceptually, but its obviously a drag with many players. I don't so much blame the gear system as I do the lethal combination of the concepts of "lots of gear tables" combined with "changing gear every mission." Many games have exhaustive gear lists, but most such games also don't expect you to change gear frequently. (I think that this problem could be solved, however, with the idea of mission oriented gear packages.)
3) I don't use skill caps. Again, like initiative mods, they make sense and I can also see them preventing some abuses, but for normal, reasonable players, I find they are seldom necessary. I sort of keep them in my back pocket for corner cases, but don't find in general they are worth the effort and don't make my players track them.
4) I don't think the pointman's versatile class ability is worth a full level's worth of class abilities.

That said, I still think SC 2.0 is a loverly game and don't really hold it against the book or designers that it doesn't do everything the way I do; no game that I don't write myself is going to be that exact. I'm not the sort of person who obsesses over the idea that some combination of class ability and campaign quality might hose some character at 20th level. That sort of thing rarely comes up, and if it does, we can find a way to compensate.

[Morgenstern]

Things that I don't particularly care for in SC 2.0:
1) While good modeling, I think tracking initiative changes is probably too much to ask.

Understand completely.It was an attempt to model a LOT of real world experience as simply as we could manage, but it does take a fair bit of energy to use. Fortunately its not a subsystem that a lot of other widgets rely on (by design), so dropping it out of use only rarely works against a character's build.

2) Gear. I mean I like it conceptually, but its obviously a drag with many players. I don't so much blame the gear system as I do the lethal combination of the concepts of "lots of gear tables" combined with "changing gear every mission." Many games have exhaustive gear lists, but most such games also don't expect you to change gear frequently. (I think that this problem could be solved, however, with the idea of mission oriented gear packages.)

I find it interesting that converting the gear system back to more traditional models with the tools developed for Big Score mostly means player's lose the power representing their having a massivie organization backig them up. But the sense of stability (and occasional acquisitiveness) seemse to be a fair trade to most players, so build those tools we did .

3) I don't use skill caps. Again, like initiative mods, they make sense and I can also see them preventing some abuses, but for normal, reasonable players, I find they are seldom necessary. I sort of keep them in my back pocket for corner cases, but don't find in general they are worth the effort and don't make my players track them.

They were one of two ways we went after a problem that cropped up in play in first ed. It turns out the other way (rigorous analysis and reduction of bonuses) cured the problem almost completely by itself. I doubt you'll see 'caps' in Henchman edition, or referenced in any future main system character options.

4) I don't think the pointman's versatile class ability is worth a full level's worth of class abilities.

I tend to agree, which is why the Fantasy Craft alt-version will almost certainly be looking a a little bit different arangement. One I suspect some folks will quietly port back to the Pointman :p.

[Psion]

I tend to agree, which is why the Fantasy Craft alt-version will almost certainly be looking a a little bit different arangement. One I suspect some folks will quietly port back to the Pointman :p.

[NekoMouser]

2) Gear. I mean I like it conceptually, but its obviously a drag with many players. I don't so much blame the gear system as I do the lethal combination of the concepts of "lots of gear tables" combined with "changing gear every mission." Many games have exhaustive gear lists, but most such games also don't expect you to change gear frequently. (I think that this problem could be solved, however, with the idea of mission oriented gear packages.)

I find it interesting that converting the gear system back to more traditional models with the tools developed for Big Score mostly means player's lose the power representing their having a massivie organization backig them up. But the sense of stability (and occasional acquisitiveness) seemse to be a fair trade to most players, so build those tools we did .

I find it difficult to describe how much I love having but hate using the current gear system. My players would rather do kinky things to themselves with sharp kitchen utensils than give building gadgets a sideways glance. Better than Budget points in a lot of ways, more balanced than not factoring gear into character power level, but still annoying to me. Versatile. But annoying. And where the heck are my bundles?!?!? Bundles rocked, taking all the work out of those pesky budget points.

Perhaps a PDF with "mission bundles" and associated gear & common item picks cost would be appropriate. Maybe I'll start working on it...hmm.

And was that a past tense? Build those tools we did? Did Big Score come out while I wasn't looking?

[Krensky]

I think what he means is that the mechanics of The Big Score are in workable fashion and he's been using them to write FantasyCraft

[NekoMouser]

Curses.

 A point on level/class based systems (that's a joke, son):

I like the freedom afforded by games like GURPS, Champions, etc. Point base systems almost always let you play a character more like what you envisioned than class level based systems. But sculpting an exact replica of your vision is awfully time consuming, especially for newer players. The same is true of anything that makes character creation more complex. In that way, 3.5 is actually a better system for new players, as it has fewer accessible options in character creation. OD&D is even better than that. Pick a class and write down the numbers. All of it's on one page. You may or may not be able to create your exact vision, but it worked for a generation of gamers. And it still works. I ran an OD&D game over last summer. My players were mostly in their early 20's, save for Trips, and were amazed at how simple the game was. Several are still trying to re-envision 3rd edition with "Can't we go back to OD&D...but, like, with feats?". If elves are archetypal, elves are a character class. Genius idea.