Mixed feelings on Spycraft 3e

[Crafty_Pat]

One thing that really does worry me is that I don't want the weapons from one era to feel just like the weapons of another - if I am running a game in the Cold War of the 1960s the weapons should feel different than those of G.I.s infiltrating Castle Ravenloft in WWII.

Feel different... how?

Rate of fire, reliability, durability, weight - all changed. There should be a difference between using a 19th century Berdan and a 21st century Barrett.

I suspect your concern here is unfounded. Unlike Fantasy Craft, Spycraft Third won't need a "greatest hits of the ages" approach because most people don't run historical hybrids with modern engines. The percentage of fantasy customers who play or run historical hybrids, however, is actually rather stunning - bordering on universal - and we would have been fools to ignore that market by sectioning gear off into separate books.

[Doublebond]

One of the things that I really don't like in Fantasy Craft is the way wheellocks and flintlocks are treated exactly the same - there is a huge difference between the two that the rules gloss over. Flintlocks were much more reliable, probably the difference between failing on a 1 and failing on a 1-3. And just adding the reliable quality doesn't cut it, since the flintlock was also cheaper, not more expensive. The world changed in a remarkably short time.

What I'm interested in knowing is how apparent this distinction still is when viewed from the greater context. While it may be apparent that one gun is significantly better than another when you're only comparing guns, does it remain so when you're looking at it from the multitude of weapons that Fantasy Craft supports? I mean, the two weapons might have significant differences in their advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other, but I would assume they both share the same advantages over, say, a club, or longbow.

This of course doesn't mean to say that we should reduce the number of gunpowder weapons, or somehow limit it (using this thread of logic we could arguably reduce the entire edged weapon section to three items: "sword," "axe," and "spear"), but rather I mean only to ask if the differences are still so striking when viewed within the larger context.

[Sletchman]

One thing I would like to see is more BFoG releases - but covering eras.  So you could have an industrial one for FC, a WW1/WW2 release for SC/10kB/FC, a futuristic release for all systems, and so forth.

This suggestion might not really fit here, but the recient discussion gave me the thought, so here it is.

[Doublebond]

One thing I would like to see is more BFoG releases - but covering eras.  So you could have an industrial one for FC, a WW1/WW2 release for SC/10kB/FC, a futuristic release for all systems, and so forth.

This suggestion might not really fit here, but the recient discussion gave me the thought, so here it is.

I think books covering entire settings and eras might work better. The way I see it, the core books cover genres of literature (& film & etc.) rather than settings. Now, I'm going with assumptions here, but it seems to be that while Spycraft will cover espionage, and 10KB will cover crime, they both need not be limited to specific settings. Ideally I could be able to take most (not all) of the rules & classes presented in Spycraft 3.0 and transpose them into a multitude of settings (the first thing that comes to mind is an alternate history steampunk espionage thriller during the Victorian era). The same with 10KB, which seems to me a more fitting rule set to use if I wanted to do a discworld game than Fantasy Craft proper (it has an emphasis on urban environments the other doesn't seem to have). Especially if I want to involve the city watch.

What these hypothetical setting/era books proposed in my first sentence could do is simply indicate what rules you would need to swap out of a specific rulebook, and provide rules to replace them with. For the most part, this simply might be replacement items, but it seems to me that they could also do things like alter classes to better fit the new setting. For example, IIRC the lawman class preview (I have no doubt it's been changed drastically by now; this is only an example) had an ability which involved calling in NPC support, like ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars. This is the type of thing that would need altering.

[Crafty_Pat]

Doublebond's closest to our overall vision for the line(s): genres in core books, with settings and other expansion material in the supplements (each of which would usually cover a specific topic).

You'll see a smattering of weapons and other gear throughout, as appropriate to each topic, but the bulk of modern and fantasy gear will appear in those two gear supplements on our Development page.

[TheAuldGrump]

One thing that really does worry me is that I don't want the weapons from one era to feel just like the weapons of another - if I am running a game in the Cold War of the 1960s the weapons should feel different than those of G.I.s infiltrating Castle Ravenloft in WWII.

Feel different... how?

Rate of fire, reliability, durability, weight - all changed. There should be a difference between using a 19th century Berdan and a 21st century Barrett.

I suspect your concern here is unfounded. Unlike Fantasy Craft, Spycraft Third won't need a "greatest hits of the ages" approach because most people don't run historical hybrids with modern engines. The percentage of fantasy customers who play or run historical hybrids, however, is actually rather stunning - bordering on universal - and we would have been fools to ignore that market by sectioning gear off into separate books.

Or at least cover a wider range of weapons - the difference between a wheellock and a flintlock is at least as great as that between a revolver and an automatic. In some ways it is like just having 'gun' and listing damage.

Separate books may not have been needed, but deeper coverage should have been present, most especially for the later Eras. It is pretty much impossible to run a plausible Industrial Era game with the contents of the book. It is better than D20 Past, but shares many of that books inherent flaws, for many of the same reasons.

The feel of an Industrial game is much closer to that of a Modern game - rapid transit, multiple record, image preservation, and long distance communication have all changed the world, but are not covered in the book, at all. (Heck, even primitive fax machines become available.) Steam train, steamship, rotary press, photograph, telegraphs, even automobiles, and all available at a fraction of the cost in previous eras, if they were available at all.

Weaponry suffers as well. There is no mention of pretty much any of the hallmark weapons of the Industrial era - the minie ball, the percussion cap, and the rimfire all appear within a single century. Not to mention Gattlings, Puckles, and Maxims. All very much a part of the Industrial Era.

Renaissance and Reformation are closer, but improvements in firearms happened even within the Renaissance. There is a reason I keep mentioning wheellocks - the snapchance and flintlock replaced it with amazing speed, much as rimfire shells replaced percussion caps - they were just better. (The snapchance was not around all that long, being replaced with what was essentially an improved snapchance - the flintlock.) With the exception of wheellocks and maybe grenades there is plenty of material to work with - I would have an easier time running an Elizabethan espionage game than a Victorian one, using just the contents of the core book.

Both the Renaissance and the Industrial Eras are technological cusps, with technological advance outstripping tactical advance.

The Auld Grump, in many ways the Industrial Era felt tacked on, not part of the whole.

[Doublebond]

The Auld Grump, in many ways the Industrial Era felt tacked on, not part of the whole.

Which is what it was, in my opinion. I don't feel very bad about it. This means that it will get a more complete treatment in the form of its own supplement, when the time comes.

Of course, I'm not the one who's actually wanting to run an industrial era game right now, so your frustration is understandable.

[TheAuldGrump]

The Auld Grump, in many ways the Industrial Era felt tacked on, not part of the whole.

Which is what it was, in my opinion. I don't feel very bad about it. This means that it will get a more complete treatment in the form of its own supplement, when the time comes.

Of course, I'm not the one who's actually wanting to run an industrial era game right now, so your frustration is understandable.

Damn near 'throw the book in the trash and use D&D' frustration at times. At least D&D doesn't pretend to cover that period. And pretend is really all Fantasy Craft does. (For what it is worth - this same frustration is why I discarded D20 Modern - their D20 Past book was a waste of dead trees. I would far prefer to have a subject not covered than be lied to and told that it is.)

As is, I am pretty sure that I will be reverting my Gargoyles game back to SC2 because of the increasing annoyance with FC. Almost all of it with the Forge chapter, in all too many ways. (I feel like Consumer Reports with the I-Phone G4 - I want to give it a good review, but because of the failure of one important part, I can't. )

The Auld Grump

[Doublebond]

Damn near 'throw the book in the trash and use D&D' frustration at times. At least D&D doesn't pretend to cover that period. And pretend is really all Fantasy Craft does. (For what it is worth - this same frustration is why I discarded D20 Modern - their D20 Past book was a waste of dead trees. I would far prefer to have a subject not covered than be lied to and told that it is.)

The Auld Grump

Actually, I don't think the book really claims to accommodate Industrial games like it does for the previous eras. Outside of one sentence in the forge chapter, the industrial era only gets mentioned in the final chapter, and even then, notice its introduction.

The Fantasy Craft “baseline” covers four eras: primitive, ancient, feudal, and reason. A fifth era, industrial, is presented to allow for slightly “futuristic” games.

The book seems to be written from the mastercraft perspective rather than its own. As a result, it introduces concepts that it doesn't actually cover, such as master classes, which it devotes valuable page space to explaining and describing despite not actually featuring any. I believe the industrial era is another one of these cases. I've searched through my copy of the rulebook, and nowhere does it explicitly say "fantasy craft can be used to run games set in the industrial era." The quote above is the closest it gets, and you can see that despite explicitly stating "Fantasy Craft can be used to run games set in primitive, ancient, feudal, and reason eras" the book deliberately separates Industrial from that listing. The only reason it would do this is because it can't be used to run industrial games.

In short, this book isn't pretending at all. Just as the book presents the concept of a master class without actually giving you a master class, it (literally) presents the concept of an industrial game without actually enabling you to run such a game. The reasons for this are obvious. If fantasy craft didn't define what a master class was, they'd have to do it in every supplement for fantasy craft that contained such a class (as you can't expect buyers to buy any specific supplement; at most, you can expect people buying fantasy craft supplements to have fantasy craft itself); in much the same way, if Fantasy Craft didn't define what the industrial era was, then the crafty folks would have to waste page space to describe it at the beginning of every industrial supplement they produce for the system.

So please stop being so hard on the system. It's not trying to deceive you, really. It just accidentally gives the wrong impression. At the very least, the book's treatment of the industrial era betrays an intent to actually accommodate it one day.

[TheAuldGrump]

If you are not actually going to cover it then don't put it in. If the GM is going to have to do the same amount of work as he would if you hadn't mentioned it, then don't mention it.

It's like the ads for '7-Up, now with no caffeine!' 7-Up may never have had the stuff, but by saying that it doesn't have it now they implied that they had changed the formula.

Bah, humbug. (In the sense that Ebeneezer Scrooge used it in, not what it has come to mean.) I would not mind doing the work, but do not imply that you have done some of it, when really, no, you have not. Even saying 'Industrial Era will be covered in the (blah) supplement' would have been better.

Spycraft covers the era better, and hardly mentions it past the Historic quality.

There are a lot of things that I really like about FC. NPC/Critter creation is a lot of fun. Combat is a blast, and the skill system far outshines the base D20 rules. My problems pretty much center around the Forge chapter, which tries to do too much in too little space.

When running the game I have no problem with it. My problems center around world building, and all the changes necessary for a plausible setting. World building is one of the areas that I had the highest hopes for FC, but it is the area that I feel that it fails in most, in part because the system is a coherent whole  - changing one thing changes the balance of a host of other things, and it all gets sticky.... And the Industrial age did just that, on a grand scale. Manufacturing, warfare, communications, even the cost of food dropped drastically, thanks to the work of McCormick.

Some things I am hoping will be covered with S₃ - weapons, vehicle creation, and equipment/gadgets. Some I expect will be firmly in my court - magic, poisons*, and the Other Realms**.

In many ways I think I prefer a nice, simple, price list to the Loot & Prize system. Whether or not you can own a house should have nothing to do with level....

The Auld Grump

* Right now I am trying to create rules covering some of my favorites from Howdunnit Book of Poisons - a writer's guide to poisons.

** Other planes of reality is very much setting, not system, specific. I do not expect the core rules to cover it.

[Doublebond]

If you are not actually going to cover it then don't put it in. If the GM is going to have to do the same amount of work as he would if you hadn't mentioned it, then don't mention it.

It's like the ads for '7-Up, now with no caffeine!' 7-Up may never have had the stuff, but by saying that it doesn't have it now they implied that they had changed the formula.

Bah, humbug. (In the sense that Ebeneezer Scrooge used it in, not what it has come to mean.) I would not mind doing the work, but do not imply that you have done some of it, when really, no, you have not. Even saying 'Industrial Era will be covered in the (blah) supplement' would have been better.

But I'm saying I don't think they ever meant to imply they had done any of the work for you yet. From what I can tell, what was presented in the book concerning the industrial era basically amounted to "this era also exists, though it is not covered in this book."

As for why they didn't list a specific supplement name, that would probably have something to do with the fact that they hadn't much of any idea what they wanted to do with an industrial era supplement despite knowing that they would want to do one eventually, and want to use Fantasy Craft as its foundation. Is it going to be a gear book? Is it going to be a setting all its own? Perhaps they just haven't decided yet. I don't think you can blame them for putting much thought into it yet, considering the shear amount of stuff they already have on their plate. IIRC, that is four different settings, two additional core books (one of which includes a setting), two gear supplements, and a mistborn rpg vaguely expected sometime in the summer of next year.

They've expressed that they want to hit all the landmarks of fiction, and that includes stuff set in industrial eras. It's not on their radar yet, but they know that they want to go in that direction, as indicated by the mention of an industrial era at all. Yet, at the same time, its presence is almost miniscule. The fact that not a single weapon, service, specialty, favor, or any other sort of thing I can think of has the requirement of the game's era being set to "industrial" should be a clear indicator that this book by itself is not intended to allow you to run games of that sort.

You can complain that they shouldn't even list it there if you can't actually run a game with it, but you could say the same about master classes, and yet I feel you wouldn't feel the same way. The book is intended first and foremost as a foundation upon which you can create games to run, in my opinion. As such, it needs to lay out all the rules of the system, even if they are not all accommodated within the work itself. People picking this book up for the first time need to know not only what base and expert classes are, but also what master classes are, even if the core book doesn't actually supply them with any, or else that absence can cause confusion when they pick up supplementary materials. In much the same way, all the eras that the crafty folks want to utilize in future supplementary materials also need to be mentioned and defined—even if one of them isn't supported by the core book.

As far as I am aware, one of the major selling points of the mastercraft system is consistency. I think it is in instances like this one that this attribute is most prominent; the crafty guys are trying to avoid instances where you have terms and concepts that only exist in supplements, but at the same time don't want to overstretch themselves. You yourself say that the industrial age was a drastic departure from the preceding eras in a multitude of ways, so it makes sense that covering such a topic to the extent it deserves is really beyond the scope of the book. Heck, from what you're telling me, you'd essentially need an entire new forge chapter just to cover all the differences.

...Now that I think about it, the upcoming gear supplement sounds like it could do just that.

[TheAuldGrump]

The problem is that due to the constant march of technology the world isn't consistent - things change. And please, do not quote that 'reality is broken' claptrap. In any contest between the game and the world, it is the game that is broken, by its nature.

Master Classes are setting specific - and are inherently different than an incomplete gear chapter. Nor do I feel that Master Classes are even necessary - I don't think any player in any of my Spycraft games ever took any of them. I have had no urge to use them for NPCs either - so why should I care if they are in the damned book or not? Expert Classes are a separate story, and while they can certainly do with greater variety, I do not feel like they are unrepresented when compared with, say, fully automatic weapons in an Industrial Era setting.

If you are not going to cover an area, or an era - Then. Don't. Mention. It. Hell even saying 'sorry, we think industrial era gaming sucks' might have almost been better. Instead there was a lukewarm eyewash that serves no real purpose in the book.

So yes, I can, and do, blame the Crafty Crew for 'not putting much thought into it'. To quote Yoda, 'Do, or do not*'. In some ways MC has started making me feel much the same way as 4e - perhaps better as a cohesive whole, but absolute trousers for world building. For adapting more conventional settings, via Qualities, etc., the book may be fine. But I run games in the Age of Reason and Industrial Era, both of which suffer when compared to more conventional periods.

The Auld Grump

* Or something that almost rhymes with 'Do or do not'....

*EDIT* To be fair - there is enough information to run a Reason campaign, if you add in some of the missing weapons. A hell of a lot easier than missing entire core mechanics at any rate....

*EDIT 2* The frustration is particularly fresh in my mind right now - because I was trying to convert my SC2 setting material to FC tonight. I am just giving it up as not being worth the royal pain in the arse. After the current scenario I am converting the Gargoyles to SC2, it will be one Hell of a lot easier. Too many key systems are present in SC2 and nowhere to be seen in FC. Maybe after S₃ comes out, but right now I feel the need to hurt somebody....

[Crafty_Pat]

Frankly Grump, I honestly think you're best served not playing Fantasy Craft, or any Mastercraft game for that matter. I don't think the goals of the new system line up very well with your interests or needs.

[TheAuldGrump]

Frankly Grump, I honestly think you're best served not playing Fantasy Craft, or any Mastercraft game for that matter. I don't think the goals of the new system line up very well with your interests or needs.

As I said - there are things that FC does very well - and for my 1600s games it would work, with the addition of a few weapons - and that I can do, without all that much trouble. (Annoyance, yes, trouble, no - but no more annoyance than what I would have doing the same for any game.)

I like the classes. I could use more of them, but that is a problem that will be mended over time, and hopefully not just by you folks. And you have been adding classes, with more due out with both S₃ and 10KB. (I will almost certainly ignore much of 10KB, but the classes, and maybe the Empire system if it is in the book....)

I like the combat. (Really. Lots of flexibility, plenty of options, and I don't need to listen to players complain about the floating initiative system that I actually happen to like.) Probably the best D20 combat system that I have tried.

I like the variety in the Species, even where I disagree with the specifics (and that is purely my taste - there is nothing I would consider a problem - it's not like I can call in a Cornish Ogre for a physical).

I like the Forge rules for crafting magic items, even though they don't particularly mesh with the rules that I prefer for magic. (I don't really hate the rules for magic, or even dislike them - they are on a par, and a hair above, D&D, and I like the refresh at the end of a scene - makes it more cinematic. I have a system that I like better, which is not at all the same thing as saying that the FC magic rules are bad, they aren't, they are in fact quite adequate, just not as much to my taste as EoM:ME.)

For the 1800s game... the Gadgets rules from SC2 work better for me than the Forge, and the weapons list is much more complete. The problems are a lot easier to address. The 1800 is pretty much the beginning of the modern world. Or to put it another way - while I like the combat rules in FC better than those in SC2, I prefer the gear systems in SC2, at least when using The Big Score.

A confession - I really did not like The Big Score when I first looked at it. In use... I was wrong - it is a very handy system, I wish that I had it earlier.  FC suffers a bit in comparison to the older game in this regard - I like The Big Score more than Forge, I just wish that the Gadget rules were more compatible with it. My cheat has been to allow Gadgets through Channels and through class special abilities - the Inventor can have Gadgets because he makes them. If the team has an Inventor, or a Channel to one, then they get a somewhat cut back Gadgets pick. Channels are excellent. I like giving Channels as prizes, and the players seem to really like getting them.

I like the Loot/Prizes system, mostly, sort of. I just need to tweak it to fit my needs in regards to Holdings. That one is not insurmountable. It may be as easy as adding a Quality with a name like 'Enormous Tracks of Land' or the like.

The Rep system is pretty darned awesome. Aside from combat this is the feature that keeps drawing me back.

Pretty much all my problems hover around the rest of the Forge section. I can't help but wonder why the heck you even bothered putting in anything for the Industrial Era if you aren't going to put in enough to actually use any of it. There just isn't enough to use. I kind of hoped/expected a PDF to show up handling it, but while I have seen some hints there has been nothing of even remotely solid information.

My tastes run more to the simulationist end of things than the rules really allow for. I want to be able to model a poison on, say, some of the cyanides - which really do not fit with the way toxins are handled in the game. How to handle such gems as the Destroying Angel (get really, really sick, get better, die) or even Deadly Nightshade (common as dirt, but actually not deadly)? Convulsants? (That last may just be flavor text on a poison that deals Lethal damage.) Problems kick in when trying to reconcile the more effective real world toxins with the prices in FC. Honestly, I may just make poisons cheaper, but give a better chance to notice them unless they are hard to detect.

I am hoping that the S₃ rules give enough of a handle on the Industrial/Modern Era that they can stand as the primary rules set, using elements of FC to fill in the gaps. Certainly, having vehicle rules would help, as would being able to use something approaching real world currencies. Gadgets could fill many of the needs for a Steampunk setting. (I have already used the Gadget rules in SC2 for such things as prosthetic limbs.) Many of the changes that I need for a steam age game would already be in the rules - vehicles and communications for example.

But every time I try to use FC for an Industrial game I end up hating the game, even though there are so many things about it that I like. Hell, after spending the better part of a night trying to get the FC rules to fit my setting I hate everyone and everything.

It would be easier if I was running the 1600s setting, but since I'm not currently doing so....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* All of this is why I am posting this in the 'Mixed Feelings' thread, not starting a new thread titled 'Grrr... I hate Fantasy Craft, The Forge, Everyone and Everything! Die, Die, Die!*' tempting though it may be when trying to hammer the rules to fit a setting that I had really hoped that it could handle on its own.

* Die, Die, Die, DIE!

[snake]

I for one do not have mixed feelings, for me this is like combing the best parts of GURPs with the best parts of D20 ending with a product dripping in awesome sauce.  10K + SC3 + FC equals a heck of a lot of flexibility to run a lot of campaigns.  Of course the an equivalent of "future" would also be nice.  

Goodlun, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I agree completely. With 10K + SC3 + FC + FS + a Psionics tool kit, we have a system to mix and match to run ANY setting. (Eg Pulp, Urban Fantasy, Horror, Planetary Romance, Post Apoc etc etc.) This basis could be then be added to with detailed world settings, gear books etc.

Please Crafty, could you make FS and Psionics the next targets after the current batch of products???