Spycraft Third edition Wishlist and Suggestions Mega-thread

[Moebius]

That's interesting. I suppose you guys don't play much Savage Worlds where it's in the RAW that the players play the NPCs.

[Sletchman]

That's interesting. I suppose you guys don't play much Savage Worlds where it's in the RAW that the players play the NPCs.

We don't, but not because of that particular rule.  Pretty much everyone I game with prefers a crunchier rules set (there's a few GURPS enthusiasts, to give you an idea of what I mean).  There are quite a number of things I really like about the Savage Worlds system, it's just not for me (so to speak).

[Moebius]

I think I agree. I just came off of an run where I was reading a lot of Savage Worlds and FATE. I like both systems a lot, but I think I prefer crunch. This (MasterCraft) and GURPS are more to my liking

[doneatrawhagis]

I'd like to see a separation of classes into groups. I don't know much about Spycraft 3.0 right now, but in 2.0 I've noticed that there are classes that only affect certain aspects of the game. I'd like it to be more organized and easier to figure out that if my GM is doing a combat heavy game, that Edgemaster is actually more charisma based rather than combat based.

Also I can't figure out how to deal extra damage with Melee weapons. While a guy with a gun turns on autofire or uses strafe fire to deal a great chunk of damage.

[Sletchman]

Not sure if you've ready Fantasy Craft, but if not I think you'll be happy with what they've added to classes - at the start of each entry is a "Role" section.  So Soldier has "Role: Combatant" and Assassin has "Role: Talker / Combatant".  There's 6 in total (so far): Backer, Combatant, Specialist, Solver, Talker and Wildcard.

I can't see why they wouldn't continue this with Spycraft 3 - allowing you to see that the Expert Class you're eyeballing is good for social suitations and plot advancement at a glance (Role: Talker / Solver).

[Crafty_Alex]

Not sure if you've ready Fantasy Craft, but if not I think you'll be happy with what they've added to classes - at the start of each entry is a "Role" section.  So Soldier has "Role: Combatant" and Assassin has "Role: Talker / Combatant".  There's 6 in total (so far): Backer, Combatant, Specialist, Solver, Talker and Wildcard.

I can't see why they wouldn't continue this with Spycraft 3 - allowing you to see that the Expert Class you're eyeballing is good for social suitations and plot advancement at a glance (Role: Talker / Solver).

We did discuss this as the summit, and I think you'll probably be seeing even *MORE* contextual information on a class to help you grasp both why it's cool and how it works. The text Sletch is referring to has been very popular with players who don't want to just puzzle through each ability to figure out how the class hangs together - this is why in the Call to Arms products we've added much more extensive tactics for building, playing, and equipping your hero effectively. Even though, both Pat and I think we can do an even better job of helping package that information front and center so that players can make a decision on what they want to play before they start building.

[Crafty_Pat]

Thinking about 'what I'd want in the new spycraft' I think the main thing is to be balanced against Fantasy Craft so mixing elements from both games into a single setting would require no or minimal tweaking. This is especially important for Talents, Specialities, and Classes.

The discussion about AP over on the Fantasy Craft board brought this to mind. SC armour needs to exist in the same continuum as FC rather than rezero the scale. I suspect a degree of ranged attack resistance will likely come into play here.

Sorry, "rezero the scale"?

[Gentry]

I think he means "operate on a different scale". The greater concept is "please let there be continuity between FC and SC 3.0 in terms of weapons and armor"

[Moebius]

I suspect that continuity is called MasterCraft

[Mister Andersen]

I think he means "operate on a different scale". The greater concept is "please let there be continuity between FC and SC 3.0 in terms of weapons and armor"

Pretty much this.

Without checking the books, my memory is that the highest base armour DR in FC is 5 for full plate while the equivalent of that in 2.0 was "Hobbyist armour" rated at 3.

[Sletchman]

I suspect that continuity is called MasterCraft

That's great in theory, but I think a few people (including myself) are slightly concerned at some of the comments Pat and Alex have made.  While I think it's utterly fantastic that the lads are being so open with their development and thought processes, it certainly does make a man a little nervous.  Little things like the idea of DR/AP changing means that if Spycraft isn't full of melee weapons and feats (and why would it be?) you can't just port them in direct from FantasyCraft and run a Shadowrun-esque setting full of street-sams - you gotta check they fall in line and alter the ones that don't.  If they add new skills you can't just bring across the missing classes - added skills means a likely change to numer of skills per class (compare Spycraft 2.0 and Fantasy Craft to see a perfect example of differing numbers of skills for the "same" classes) - suddenly they won't quite fit.

Yes these are all relatively easy changes, but the whole idea of MasterCraft (or any toolkit) is that you don't have to make changes - stuff just works.  I totally understand that certain aesthetic things will change - Ride becomes Drive, for example.  It's just that if crossing between books is as much effort as Spycraft 2.0 -> Fantasy Craft then you have to ask "Why call it a unified system if it isn't?"

I'm sure I come across as a little bit self entitled, but that's how it is I guess.  I'm fully confident that Pat and Alex will deliver the goods when the time is finally here though.

I think he means "operate on a different scale". The greater concept is "please let there be continuity between FC and SC 3.0 in terms of weapons and armor"

Pretty much this.

Without checking the books, my memory is that the highest base armour DR in FC is 5 for full plate while the equivalent of that in 2.0 was "Hobbyist armour" rated at 3.

Hobbyist Armour was 8/1 - so it was actually 3 points higher then FC plate against almost all the weapons FC has (but useless against guns).  I do agree with the point you're making though, just thought it was worth mentioning.  I'm glad the X/Y system is done with though, I was a little tired of saying "the DR after the stroke is the one you want" every time I inflict damage on a player.

[Moebius]

I've missed the comments you referenced. But I can see your concern. I'm confident Fantasy Craft and 3rd Edition will be pretty easily interchangeable.

Could you point me in the direction of the comments that concern you?

[Big_Jim]

You just covered most of my concerns, Sletchman. Mastercraft is the wheel, there's no need to reinvent it. Hubcaps, spinners, etc. are what I want. But the wheel should be finished. Development hell is seeming to be extended longer and longer for Crafty products. I honestly thought I'd be caressing 10k bullets by now.

[tfwfh]

That's great in theory, but I think a few people (including myself) are slightly concerned at some of the comments Pat and Alex have made.  While I think it's utterly fantastic that the lads are being so open with their development and thought processes, it certainly does make a man a little nervous.

You're not the only one.  I'm hopeful that this is just the result of the balance they're trying to strike of being open about what they're doing and where they are with it, while at the same time not giving away specifics for fear they might change later.

I've decided to be optimistic about it though.  For gear, as long as the system of prizes and magic items doesn't change (much) in the re-skinning, that's all I'm really interested in.  It would be quite the odd setting that needs a detailed representation of swords and spears alongside machine guns and rocket launchers, and I'm personally ok with it if the balance is off a bit in that regard.  The other parts that concern me are skills and feats.  I had a look at skills and I think that FC's skill list does just fine for a modern or even future setting with just the addition of the SC2.0 Science skill, with Computers, Cultures, Electronics, and Mechanics added as focuses.  Feats I think will be easy enough to port simply because they already have such a large body of work to use as a starting point, and it's easier to just keep that and build on it, rather than start over and change things.

I've missed the comments you referenced. But I can see your concern. I'm confident Fantasy Craft and 3rd Edition will be pretty easily interchangeable.

Could you point me in the direction of the comments that concern you?

I don't really recall which comments specifically bothered me, but I think most of them are going to be in this thread, the Year for SC 3.0 thread, and the Spellbound Update thread over in the FC section of the forums.

[Sletchman]

I had a look at skills and I think that FC's skill list does just fine for a modern or even future setting with just the addition of the SC2.0 Science skill, with Computers, Cultures, Electronics, and Mechanics added as focuses.

I disagree with you here.

Basically, I think we have what we need - I think FC's skill list is downright elegant, in so many ways.  It all comes down to end product.  Is something being produced?  It's Craft.  Do you Know something?  Knowledge.  Cultures/Languages?  Studies.  Electronics and Mechanics are just Craft focuses - the rules for building and repairing items is already in place, so why have two skills doing the same thing?  Computers is the same - are you producing something?  Craft (Progamming).  Hacking?  Investigate (same as it was in Spycraft).  Why would a Science skill do that the system doesn't already have in place - hell, what would any new skill do that isn't already covered?  That's gotta be the big question.

The biggest advantage to keeping an identical list (rename Ride to something more suitable - "Operate" or "Control" perhaps?) is that it makes every class and every feat, from every book, a bolt in and go job.

Could you point me in the direction of the comments that concern you?

I can't recall the exact threads they were in - but it's generally the ones where people ask about Spycraft 3 (and additional books in general).  It's not "here's what we're doing" - it's "here's what could perhaps happen".  New skills are mentioned as possibilities, changes to DR/AP, etc.

I totally trust the guys* - Fantasy Craft is an absolute blast, and so is SC2.0.  I just really want the system to effectively be a (far) more cinematic and easier to approach GURPS.  To be able to use the system I've loved for over a decade to run anything I can imagine, without writing yet another 100 page book for my players full of new / altered rules.  Not just for me either - to play in other guys games and say "Hey, can I use the Emmisary in this 10k Bullets game?  It's from Adventure Companion (another MasterCraft product) so you know it's 100% compatible and balanced."  No fuss, no muss - easy.


*And to Pat and Alex I want to emphasise this point - you guys have done truly terrific work with the range so far, so please don't take this as either an insult, attack, or anything else against your work.  It's not.  I'm just hoping that these can be constructive concerns, if that makes sense?