GitS: d20 Modern/Future > SC2.0

[RichardAshenden]

I just discovered what appears to be a VERY well-thought-out d20 Modern/Future rendering of the Ghost in the Shell movie and/or anime.

I'm a relatively new convert to the GitS stuff, and am eager to delve into a SC2.0 fueled campaign.

Is anyone here familiar with this person's conversion doc:

http://serenadawn.com/Download-Gits.html

I am still in the process of assimilating the SC2.0 rules into my brain-box and would love to take the time to compare the stats and mechanics in the above doc to SC rules, with a mind to make sound, balanced conversions to our favorite RPG rules engine. 

If I can muster the time in my evenings, I'd like to use this as a way to learn SC2.0 in a more hands-on way than just reading through the brick of the book and popping tylenol. 

If this has been covered in other threads, oops! 

[Forcegypsy]

Downloaded, will read and then comment.

[NekoMouser]

Same here. I'm in process ith some other d20 Future material just now, as Farthest Star won't be here for a while. Off for a read...

[NekoMouser]

Okay, skipping the story and jumping to the crunchy bits. I warn you that I'm just as harsh here as with my own stuff...

p. 45 looks to have a number of good news points for a SC conversion, notably the reference to buying feats and gear with experience. Spycraft takes gear into account as a factor of experience with gear picks, and xp for feats is actually a campaign quality.

The BAB limitation is crippling to high BAB classes in d20 Modern, and makes me wonder whether the purpose of this game is to figure on an inability to hit anything at higher levels. The cap would be entirely unnecessary in Spycraft, as NPCs stat blocks convert relatively evenly at all power levels. A kobold stat block at the teams threat level is just as tough for the team to beat at 4th level or 14th, in theory.

I'll bypass cybernetics for a sec and move on to the next page. Between -5 and +5 attribute mods AFTER race? Interesting. Another hamstring on characters, and one not really appropriate to genre at all IMO. But no sweat, if you want to you can slow attribute growth with a campaign quality.

Okay, now here's an interesting bit that puts me right where I wanted to be on cyberware. Spycraft generally doesn't have you roll dice for attribute generation, as attribute balance is really very important to the d20 system.  The assumption is made in this PDF that, as some cyber actually replaces stats, that you shouldn't let PCs have dump stats. Nice. How about we assume that a system that allows characters to replace stats rather than boosting them doesn't take attributes into account when factoring game balance? What the heck is the point? You've acknowledged attribute balance and then plugged in a way to blow the balance apart in an unequal way immediately. Might as well have them roll every die they have and keep the ones they want, as long as the final modifier isn't above +5, and then le them replace anything they don't like with something else at the cost of some experience. Silly.

But why have a system of boosts or replacements at all? Can anyone tell me what mods Roy had that allowed him to kick Deckard all over the top of a building? Does it matter? NO. It would come down to a semantical explanation of bio this and vat grown that to explain why a Soldier can kick the crap out of a Sleuth in a straight fight. A character with an 18+ Strength may just be a pro athlete in our world, but may also be using performance enhancing drugs...and in the world of the future may simply be that strong because of bio or cyber mods. Unbalancing the attribute buy system for the purpose of window dressing is kinda silly.

That's attributes, though. What about other stuff? Spycraft allows for a lot of gear picks and special abilities that could just as easily have been derived from metallic enhancement as meat training and a holster full of weapon picks.

e.g. An old soldier has some Smart levels (see Back to Basics supplement), and takes the knacks Liguistics 1 & 2. Did he go to DLI-FLC? No...he merely uses his old codebreaking headware (now with years out of date software, unable to achieve its original purpose) to "decode" languages. Same mechanic as having the actual language expert, different window dressing.

Some things aren't handled by existing class abilities... and for those things we have gadget picks. A medium sized PC can incorporate up to 3 mechanisms as if their own body were a gadget housing using the standard rules. If you wanted to run a more kitchen sink cyberware style, just allow your PCs to designate any picks or common items as internal. Such items would have additional utility, but not be subject to modification in the field during the mission. Use the standard stats for the item. Heck, if you're feeling frisky you could even set that up as the "cyber-gumby" campaign quality. ^_^

Bypassing hacking for the moment...

Next page, 47...Action points and reputation. Spycraft Action dice replace, as does Faction Reputation. No actual converting needed.

Page 48...Gawd. #1 makes my point about attributes being a key factor in determining balance between characters & NPCs. And he actually had to make a new scale so characters with low Cons don't die during leveling. I miss Traveler, but not that much. Spycraft uses VP/Wounds, which is like this but doesn't unbalance existing class structure by ignoring Class effect on character staying power. Seriously, doing things by the PDF would seem to completely unbalance the existing classes. The Soldier wouldn't achieve benefit from BAB after 11th level, wouldn't benefit from a higher hit die, but would still have crap for skill points. Wha?

Aw, isn't that cute. He's actually separated DR from Defense bonus. Nice. Spycraft already does that. Moving on...

Holy crap. Base 15 defense? I was right. This is about not being able to hit anything at high levels...that's useless, but if it isn't to someone else, I suggest a campaign quality where nobody hits anybody except on an action die confirmed crit, which of course goes straight to wounds. Have fun with that...

On to 49...Let's see...the templates here are nothing but a combination of occupation and race, and occupation and race are both replaced by Talent and Specialty in Spycraft.

pp. 54-58 There's nothing there that can't be summed up by taking a high initial attribute at character creation, taken as a feat or a skill, or taken as a subplot in Spycraft. Still, good job on plugging it into a needy system like d20 Modern. ^_^

59-88 No basic classes. So we've yet again agreed tht cinematic characters can't be built effectively with mook classes. Using the Spycraft classes here will take you a long way...GitS is an espionage genre game. Go figure. No real need to convert on first pass over. Get WoF, as it might be useful for the expert classes.

I would note that the important detail here is that everybody has the Computer skill. It's awfully important to story. So call it a class skill for everybody, or just give everybody a flat number of skill points to put into it...like 2? Dependent on starting level.

Career path, starting on page 89, sounds like it a neat idea for d20 Modern, or 3.5 D&D for that matter. It's kind of an analog to "Faction" and "Campaign Qualities" in Spycraft. No conversion necessary. Look in the SEH2.0 for "Organizations" and "Play Styles".

I'll pause at the end of page 90 for a bit of dinner...

[Number Three]

I'm more interested in the story bits.  It's not like half the board isn't going to pounce on the source material whenever Shatterpunk finally hits.
First impression: "Well, the bookmarks are completely useless." 
Second impression:  "Hmm, it certainly has a lot of detail here.  I wonder if he left any footnotes?"
Third impression:  "Wait, is that..." [shuffles through the internet] "Yep, he scragged his Section 15.  Oh boy."

[Mister Andersen]

A medium sized PC can incorporate up to 3 mechanisms as if their own body were a gadget housing using the standard rules.

That's incorrect. Humans are comprised of a mass of Small or lesser sized components contained in a Medium sized envelope.

[NekoMouser]

A medium sized PC can incorporate up to 3 mechanisms as if their own body were a gadget housing using the standard rules.

That's incorrect. Humans are comprised of a mass of Small or lesser sized components contained in a Medium sized envelope.

Quiet you! Nothing from the peanut gallery until I'm done with my otherwise brilliant diatribe.

[Forcegypsy]

NekoMouser has done a much more thorough critique than I'm willing to, so I'll simply nod my head to most of his points. There are some really dubious design decisions in that pdf. I really think the defense hike to base 15 is the least of the designers worries. He's essentially given everyone a chain shirt to compensate for his nerfing of survivability. I don't think that's the most elegant adjustment to say the least. XP cost for everything else just works out as incredibly clunky.

Aside from the fluff element here, and the item names, I would just start all over using SC2.0, it'd be easier IMO.

[spinningdice]

A medium sized PC can incorporate up to 3 mechanisms as if their own body were a gadget housing using the standard rules.

That's incorrect. Humans are comprised of a mass of Small or lesser sized components contained in a Medium sized envelope.

Actually that's pretty unofficial. I'm pretty sure there is no official rules on gadgets into living creatures.

That said, I tend to ignore the size limits on gadgets most of the time anyway - my players have an odd disintrest.

[Mister Andersen]

It's valid for cars, I see no reason why it's not valid for people (and for the Cybernetics wealth stat to work, it pretty much has to be)

[spinningdice]

I'm not saying it's not a valid option and one I wouldn't have issue with, but it's no more official than saying a person is a Medium object for purposes of gadgets or even that living people do not count as objects at all. It's a GC call & the same call for cars as far as I'm concerned.

[NekoMouser]

A medium sized PC can incorporate up to 3 mechanisms as if their own body were a gadget housing using the standard rules.

That's incorrect. Humans are comprised of a mass of Small or lesser sized components contained in a Medium sized envelope.

Actually that's pretty unofficial. I'm pretty sure there is no official rules on gadgets into living creatures.

That said, I tend to ignore the size limits on gadgets most of the time anyway - my players have an odd disintrest.

In the first print, it's on page 222, 2nd column, Gadgets heading, just below paragraph 7 as a Special Note.

"In games where cybernetics are possible, a gadget's housing may be a part of the character's body, using the same rules and restictions."

So it's there, but subject to the ambiguity noted so glibbly by Mr Andersen. Instead of a single Medium object, a Human might be a number of smaller housings (Arm, head, torso, etc). How small do you go? License to Improvise, baby!

[RichardAshenden]

Aside from the fluff element here, and the item names, I would just start all over using SC2.0, it'd be easier IMO.

Roger that. 

[Maldroth]

well the beauty of using SC2.0 for GitS is that for the rules you don't have to custom fit any of the base rules to make GitS possible.

Now the only thing that SC2.0 lacks is examples of how to use the gadget system for cybernetics. As others have said the rules are there.

I'd say you just need to make some sample cyber picks to show players what is possible with the gadget and gear system in SC2.0 and perhaps a few custom made campaign qualities to dial in SC2.0 for the level of Cyberpunk you want to play.

Instead of two books and all those conversion notes you can just use the SC2.0 book and a single sheet of notes to do GitS. (not counting setting fluff material mind you).

Last year about this time I was on the boards asking questions about this sort of thing and found this to be the best course of action. I'm going to be running a game like this locally so we'll see what happens.

[Mister Andersen]

I'm not saying it's not a valid option and one I wouldn't have issue with, but it's no more official than saying a person is a Medium object for purposes of gadgets or even that living people do not count as objects at all. It's a GC call & the same call for cars as far as I'm concerned.

*points to article on gadget design in S&P*

You don't honestly think that article would have seen publication if the underlaying premise was wrong, do you?