Mixed feelings on Spycraft 3e

[Morgenstern]

I would really love to see the 2.0 gear system being ported to 3.0. Not only does the old system work, it also gives the player flexibility (which I don't see in FC).

SC 2.0's picks based, intercangeable on a per-mission basis system is conceptually appropriate to espionage gaming, but it really threw a lot of people for a loop. Fortunately with 10kB forming in parallel, I think there's some real opportunity to address self-funded and managed play and issued-from-central-stores play as two truely seperate gaming environments.

I'm wary about the simplified feats and the impact it will have on martial arts games, the changes in FC left me a bit underwhelmed.

Can you elaborate on this point?

I also worry by the specific approach SC is taking. Espionage as a genre is of no interest to me, I prefer crime (which thankfully is covered in 10KB), military and over-the-top action. 2.0 is my one stop for this, I can play zombie survival one day and miami vice the other. With the division into genre books I lose this flexibility.

Its a trade off for specificity. I don't see anything wrong with saying "I'm buying 10kB. I might buy SC 3 as a supliment for it."

[Bill Whitmore]

Which actually speaks directly to the dificulty of working with the modern era. For sci-fi it's no big deal (even appealing) to have maybe 30-40 base models, a couple layers of of overlays (weapon technology/manufaturer/quality level), and 20ish ge-gaws you can attach to them... and viola - 20,000 sci-fi weapons. Like magic, nobody can really tell you you're wrong when you do it that way and its eminently balanced, diverse, interesting, and playable. But dealing with the modern age you start hitting some demands for research and accuracy that, unless you are a pre-existing ameteur scholar on the topic, can quickly far outstrip the finacial return for the effort.

Put me in the category of yes to generics.  I much prefer this system of base weapon plus modifiers for weapons than trying to pick a specific pistol out of 30 nearly identical ones.

It is something I never understood in modern games.  I don't care if my flashlight has Duracell or Eveready batteries or if my rope was manufactured by CSR Incorporated or Ropes R Us, Inc.  Hell, I don't really care if my Classic Car is a Packard Sedan or a Studebaker Hawk.

But for some reason, once the topic is guns, you have to include specific entry for every make, model, caliber and magazine size. 

I can pick an Exotic Sports Car and call it a Corvette ZR1, a Lamborghini Reventon, a Ferrari Scuderia, or a Porsche GT2.  Why can't I just pick a pistol, slap some upgrades on it and call it whatever I want?

[Aragathor]

SC 2.0's picks based, interchangeable on a per-mission basis system is conceptually appropriate to espionage gaming, but it really threw a lot of people for a loop. Fortunately with 10kB forming in parallel, I think there's some real opportunity to address self-funded and managed play and issued-from-central-stores play as two truly separate gaming environments.

I hope the 10kB system will finally allow me to play my evil criminal campaign with "rewards" being counted in "product shipments by the kilo".

Can you elaborate on this point?

The simplification of the feats led to a depleted amount of choices for unarmed combatants. In 2.0 a player with one Basics and one Moves feat has one flat bonus, one stance and four tricks, which is pretty nice when it comes to combat options. In FC the same player has 2 flat bonuses, a stance and a trick, which in my eyes is a bit too little (I'm not a fan of flat bonuses). It all boils down to choice. I was and still am more than impressed by 2.0's amount of options. FC on the other hand does not have the same feel, at least not to me.

Its a trade off for specificity. I don't see anything wrong with saying "I'm buying 10kB. I might buy SC 3 as a supliment for it."

Yeah, but is the trade off worth it? With 2.0 I have a one stop solution, with 3.0 I have an espionage book and a crime book, plus nothing on military campaigns or post-apocalypse etc.
What I see in the future is a dispersal of character options among many books, which will force players to buy them all to customize their characters according to character concepts. I would rather prefer a single "Modern Mastercraft" rulebook covering basic rules with 10kB and Spycraft covering settings, than have all the basic rules strewn across several books or heavens forbid, repeated in every MC book I buy.

[Morgenstern]

The simplification of the feats led to a depleted amount of choices for unarmed combatants. In 2.0 a player with one Basics and one Moves feat has one flat bonus, one stance and four tricks, which is pretty nice when it comes to combat options. In FC the same player has 2 flat bonuses, a stance and a trick, which in my eyes is a bit too little (I'm not a fan of flat bonuses). It all boils down to choice. I was and still am more than impressed by 2.0's amount of options. FC on the other hand does not have the same feel, at least not to me.

While Mastercraft shows a strong shift towards feats having 1-2 parts instead of 1-3 parts, in keeping with a general reduction in dificulty to use and memorize, I'd point out we just haven't seen "Moves" feats in Mastercraft yet. That doesn't mean they can't exist as a sampler platter of 3 tricks - possibly without prerequisites at all. FantasyCraft is not really the native environment of martial arts in the same way that SC 1st ed didn't see a major fleshing out of the topic until the second year of Shadowforce Archer. SC 2.0 basically inherited the guts of that effort as part of its all in one compilation of previous material.

Still, its good to know the 2.0 system is missed, when I'm puttering in my lab thinking about new text.

Yeah, but is the trade off worth it? With 2.0 I have a one stop solution, with 3.0 I have an espionage book and a crime book, plus nothing on military campaigns or post-apocalypse etc.

The handful of pages in 2.0 that actually addressed those types of games haven't become less valid from what I can see. If that was enough of a primer to make 2.0 your one stop for those things, then I think you probably have the drive and imagination to make a mastercraft product sit up and bark for your purposes too .

What I see in the future is a dispersal of character options among many books, which will force players to buy them all to customize their characters according to character concepts. I would rather prefer a single "Modern Mastercraft" rulebook covering basic rules with 10kB and Spycraft covering settings, than have all the basic rules strewn across several books or heavens forbid, repeated in every MC book I buy.

*shrug* The massive tome model works against making the sale and cuts (deep) into potential profits. Looking at the path of my own career, I think it's realistic to reframe the question "would you rather have it in semi-overlapping chunks, nor not at all?"

[Azgulor]

Put me in the category of yes to generics.  I much prefer this system of base weapon plus modifiers for weapons than trying to pick a specific pistol out of 30 nearly identical ones.

It is something I never understood in modern games.  I don't care if my flashlight has Duracell or Eveready batteries or if my rope was manufactured by CSR Incorporated or Ropes R Us, Inc.  Hell, I don't really care if my Classic Car is a Packard Sedan or a Studebaker Hawk.

But for some reason, once the topic is guns, you have to include specific entry for every make, model, caliber and magazine size. 

I can pick an Exotic Sports Car and call it a Corvette ZR1, a Lamborghini Reventon, a Ferrari Scuderia, or a Porsche GT2.  Why can't I just pick a pistol, slap some upgrades on it and call it whatever I want?

Apologies for being contrary, but put me in the specific/customized camp.  I like the differentiation in weapons.  If I wanted generic firearm X, where stats don't have any impact, I'd still be playing D20 Modern.

DON'T take away my bag-full-of-guns approach.  PLEASE.

[Azgulor]

Just to clear at least one thing up, we have never, and will never, consider generic weapons for Spycraft Third.

THANK YOU!!!!!

[Mister Andersen]

I like the modular generic approach -- choose frame, barrel, caliber, base qualities, add-ons, manufacture, materials, then hold up real world weapons as examples of a particular combination.

[Crafty_Alex]

Take a deep breath, everyone. Pat and I have said N-O-T-H-I-N-G about what is or what's not going in Spycraft 3rd. Try to not get too worked up about the failure of the gear system, or how the game can't possibly support what you want to do with it, or whatever, before you see facts from us

[Sletchman]

Take a deep breath, everyone. Pat and I have said N-O-T-H-I-N-G about what is or what's not going in Spycraft 3rd. Try to not get too worked up about the failure of the gear system, or how the game can't possibly support what you want to do with it, or whatever, before you see facts from us

Surely you guys aren't surprised at the reaction though?  Or at least not totally surprised.  Though this thread sure did explode between me leaving for Uni this morning and getting home tonight.  Wonder what tomorrow morning has in store.

[Trigger]

As with any new system, there is going to be many questions and time to adjust to it.  My gaming group found that out when we first tackled Spycraft 2.0 for the first time.  Check HERE for a review I did of 2.0 when our gaming group first started and the hurdles we had to overcome then.  I will wait to see what Pat and Alex come up with in SC 3.0 before passing anymore judgement or asking any in-depth questions.  I have always backed the Crafty camp and have preached Spycraft to the masses so will wait patiently.   

[TheTSKoala]

Take a deep breath, everyone. Pat and I have said N-O-T-H-I-N-G about what is or what's not going in Spycraft 3rd. Try to not get too worked up about the failure of the gear system, or how the game can't possibly support what you want to do with it, or whatever, before you see facts from us

But.. but.. Wolvie already hit the "ZOMG! IT'S TEH END OF TEH WORLD!!!1!" button.  How can we go back from that!? lol.

[Aragathor]

I posted an answer to Morg's post before. Who deleted it?

While Mastercraft shows a strong shift towards feats having 1-2 parts instead of 1-3 parts, in keeping with a general reduction in dificulty to use and memorize, I'd point out we just haven't seen "Moves" feats in Mastercraft yet. That doesn't mean they can't exist as a sampler platter of 3 tricks - possibly without prerequisites at all. FantasyCraft is not really the native environment of martial arts in the same way that SC 1st ed didn't see a major fleshing out of the topic until the second year of Shadowforce Archer. SC 2.0 basically inherited the guts of that effort as part of its all in one compilation of previous material.

There is no guarantee that we will see "moves" feats in 3.0.
And a difficulty in "use and memorization" is probably very minuscule.

The handful of pages in 2.0 that actually addressed those types of games haven't become less valid from what I can see. If that was enough of a primer to make 2.0 your one stop for those things, then I think you probably have the drive and imagination to make a mastercraft product sit up and bark for your purposes too .

I don't mean the few pages in the back of the book. I mean the whole package which is 2.0.
What we have right now is Espionage and Crime/Street being genres that will appear in the future, everything beyond that (with classes, feats and the whole shebang) being uncertain.

*shrug* The massive tome model works against making the sale and cuts (deep) into potential profits. Looking at the path of my own career, I think it's realistic to reframe the question "would you rather have it in semi-overlapping chunks, nor not at all?"

I'll take the answer number three. I know that a big book with everything (like Dark heresy) isn't viable.
What I was thinking about is rather a small book with the basics like combat rules, standard feats and classes, skill descriptions. This way every genre book would be stronger because there wouldn't be a need for the description of basic rules.
This approach has proven successful in at least one case -> nWoD.

[Wolverine]

But.. but.. Wolvie already hit the "ZOMG! IT'S TEH END OF TEH WORLD!!!1!" button.  How can we go back from that!? lol.

I never said I would be the only one to push that button, I just did it first

[Doublebond]

I would probably opt for a more generic system, as it allows for more flexibility. I can tell that for some people their gun is going to be just "a pistol" while for others it will be "a Jericho 941F" (why, yes, I did just copy that off of Wikipedia. How did you know? ) and for still others it's just going to be "a gun". Using a generic model allows for the weapon to be whatever you want it to be in your mind's eye. But I'm not very passionate about this. I have some friends who have a small room in their basement that you can't really walk in because of all the weapons, and they might find all the different, specific weapons choices attractive, but they also might simply be turned off because of how inaccurate is.

So if you don't do generics, be very accurate is what I suppose I'm trying to say.

[Aragathor]

I would probably opt for a more generic system, as it allows for more flexibility. I can tell that for some people their gun is going to be just "a pistol" while for others it will be "a Jericho 941F" (why, yes, I did just copy that off of Wikipedia. How did you know? ) and for still others it's just going to be "a gun". Using a generic model allows for the weapon to be whatever you want it to be in your mind's eye. But I'm not very passionate about this. I have some friends who have a small room in their basement that you can't really walk in because of all the weapons, and they might find all the different, specific weapons choices attractive, but they also might simply be turned off because of how inaccurate is.

So if you don't do generics, be very accurate is what I suppose I'm trying to say.

Have your friends seen the BfoG PDFs?
Because this is the accuracy Crafty games is aiming for.