Spycraft 3 - What Classes? [Was 'Scientist?']

[Sletchman]

For me, the keyword of pawsplay's post was "just".  If a character is just a driver, and no more - why would any PC want to play that?  If a mission goes well you don't even need that PC - they do nothing.  That is lame beyond words.

Now if a player can out drive the NPCs, while still being cool in other ways [see a mid-level lancer for example], that is what I want outta a PC.

I agree with the spirit of your post Regularguy - PCs should be awesome, if they get crapped on by the NPCs all the time they will start to ask why they don't just play as NPCs.  On the other hand, if the game the GM is running won't have chases 99% of the time, having a player invest heavily in something that never comes up is worse then having a cool NPC from time to time.

[Crafty_Alex]

(Why not require me to outsource the part about fighting like hell?  How about if I only ever get to call in the talented mechanic who plays saboteur and rigs up great stuff on the fly?  Man, if we likewise restrict the computer-hacking specialty to NPCs, I could be the fun personal lieutenant who gets to say wacky stuff!)

I think that's a wee bit hyperbolic. No one's saying the NPCs must be better than the PCs - the PCs really do excel in every way when looked at as more than a single skill bonus. A PCs power is defined by skill at a broad range of activities, up to and including that skill bonus only the NPC is good at. What paws is referring to, as I understand it, is if a character concept can be so utterly narrow as "I extract the team from the mission zone very very well" (Getaway Driver) than it's not really class-worthy. "I drive very well" (Wheelman) is barely enough for a class to stand on - and then it'd only be an expert class, if that. "I'm an expert at moving teammates and supplies across borders and obstacles, and all the supporting bargaining, evasion, and driving skills that come with it" (Smuggler) is more of the package of abilities and competencies I would associate with a full class.

In the continum of deciding what's a single rule, a small bundle of rules, or something worth of a class, I follow the general line of thinking:

Single situation < Activity < Related Group of Activities

Thus, in this case, it might behoove us to have a single rule (say, maybe a feat) for being good at getaways; a skill, origin and supporting feats (possibly an expert class) geared towards driving; and classes around things that are too complex to be modeled with just a skill and feats like being an courier or smuggler. My thinking may change as I get into it, but that's where I start.

But let me put the question back at you, Reg - what is required by the system to be acceptable in this situation? Is it simply unacceptable that an NPC would be better than a PC with maximum ranks in something at the same threat level?

[MilitiaJim]

Is it simply unacceptable that an NPC would be better than a PC with maximum ranks in something at the same threat level?

I'm not Reg, but I'll toss in my shiny penny of opinion:  A PC heavily invested in <skill> should beat NPCs most of the time.  The difficulty comes in when an NPC who has a chance at hanging with a Wheelman smokes a PC who is competent.

As things work now, the group with a Wheelman wins the chase.  If either or neither has one, it works better.  I don't have a good answer for this.   

[Crafty_Alex]

Is it simply unacceptable that an NPC would be better than a PC with maximum ranks in something at the same threat level?

I'm not Reg, but I'll toss in my shiny penny of opinion:  A PC heavily invested in <skill> should beat NPCs most of the time.  The difficulty comes in when an NPC who has a chance at hanging with a Wheelman smokes a PC who is competent.

That's how it works now - the PC nearly always beats even a very specialized NPC. However, saying that a hyper specialized getaway driver NPC shouldn't be able to beat a guy who just took, say, half-ranks in Drive, completely cripples both the GM's ability to challenge PC's and is the exact reverse situation of what you're concerned about - you end up with earlier editions of Spycraft where the big bad lasted an average of 3 rounds and then was dead to the party of PCs...total anticlimax. Why should the GM even try to challenge players or build characters that are highly trained if they essentially must lose simply because PC's exist? What's good for the goose is good for the gander - PCs already have the edge due to there being 4 of them, action dice, special character status, PC options, class abilities, etc.

As things work now, the group with a Wheelman wins the chase.  If either or neither has one, it works better.  I don't have a good answer for this.   

I'm not really seeking solutions - I'm getting a feel for what people think is too much, or too little, or just right cause everyone seems to have a different measure/threshold on all of these things. You see the problem with the Wheelman "easy button" already - we'll be solving that. As you note - lack of a Wheelman actually makes chases more interesting. That, in and of itself, is reason enough for me to start from the ground level again, because the entire point of chases/DCons is to be dramatic. It says right there on the tin 

[mathey]

When a player intends his character to be The Best at something, I think its fair to offer him options to make that happen. Ideally ones that are clearly stated and which don't offset other players' abilities to contribute to the game.

But its also fair for the GM to provide that character (and his team) with opposition or obstacles that challenge even that expert's amazing abilities. It may even be incumbent upon the GM to do so, because otherwise, like Alex notes, there's no drama. No doubt. No tension. Just a perfunctory series of die rolls.

Now, obviously, you can present your PCs with paper tigers now and again so they can feel distinguished and badass. That can totally be fun. But Bond, Bourne, Smiley, and Westen only truly impress us when they're up against it, not when they casually breeze through a familiar set of pre-ordained scenarios.

[Crafty_Pat]

When a player intends his character to be The Best at something, I think its fair to offer him options to make that happen. Ideally ones that are clearly stated and which don't offset other players' abilities to contribute to the game.

But its also fair for the GM to provide that character (and his team) with opposition or obstacles that challenge even that expert's amazing abilities. It may even be incumbent upon the GM to do so, because otherwise, like Alex notes, there's no drama. No doubt. No tension. Just a perfunctory series of die rolls.

Now, obviously, you can present your PCs with paper tigers now and again so they can feel distinguished and badass. That can totally be fun. But Bond, Bourne, Smiley, and Westen only truly impress us when they're up against it, not when they casually breeze through a familiar set of pre-ordained scenarios.

QFT

[VisualStatic]

When a player intends his character to be The Best at something, I think its fair to offer him options to make that happen. Ideally ones that are clearly stated and which don't offset other players' abilities to contribute to the game.

But its also fair for the GM to provide that character (and his team) with opposition or obstacles that challenge even that expert's amazing abilities. It may even be incumbent upon the GM to do so, because otherwise, like Alex notes, there's no drama. No doubt. No tension. Just a perfunctory series of die rolls.

Now, obviously, you can present your PCs with paper tigers now and again so they can feel distinguished and badass. That can totally be fun. But Bond, Bourne, Smiley, and Westen only truly impress us when they're up against it, not when they casually breeze through a familiar set of pre-ordained scenarios.

QFT

Someone buy that man a beer or his drink of choice... so very very true...

[MilitiaJim]

Someone buy that man a beer or his drink of choice... so very very true...

I've got some emergency rum in my truck.  This qualifies.

[Regularguy]

But let me put the question back at you, Reg - what is required by the system to be acceptable in this situation? Is it simply unacceptable that an NPC would be better than a PC with maximum ranks in something at the same threat level?

I like the answers the other folks gave, but mine is pretty much the one I gave in the post you quoted: If you're saying "the Contact drives like hell, by which I mean he's as good as a PC who specializes in it," then, okay, sure.  If, say, you're whipping up an enemy agent when designing a challenge for our heroes, then I don't ever want the reasoning to include "Well, he'd be great at that specialty if I built him with a PC class, but he'd be slightly better at it with an NPC class."

However, saying that a hyper specialized getaway driver NPC shouldn't be able to beat a guy who just took, say, half-ranks in Drive, completely cripples both the GM's ability to challenge PC's and is the exact reverse situation of what you're concerned about

Rest assured, that's not what I'm asking for.

PCs already have the edge due to there being 4 of them, action dice, special character status, PC options, class abilities, etc.

If you want an equal match-up, then pit 'em against three or four NPCs who get some action dice of their own and qualify for special status; all I'm asking for is that "PC options and class abilities" don't, at that point, get overshadowed by NPC options and class abilities.

[pawsplay]

Really, if a character is just "the getaway driver," why not make him a Contact with Drive X and some driving-related feats? Once per adventure, he drives like hell, and done.

Because that gets disturbing when it becomes a requirement.

When you restrict a build to NPCs by designating it off-limits for the players, you're making me feel like the PCs aren't the heroes; the real stars are the guys who excel in ways I can't.  If you're saying "the Contact drives like hell, by which I mean he's as good as a PC who specializes in it," then, okay, sure; if you're saying "the Contact drives like hell, better than a PC could," then I'm rolling my eyes.  (Why not require me to outsource the part about fighting like hell?  How about if I only ever get to call in the talented mechanic who plays saboteur and rigs up great stuff on the fly?  Man, if we likewise restrict the computer-hacking specialty to NPCs, I could be the fun personal lieutenant who gets to say wacky stuff!)

I never said the NPC was better as a driver, just that they were worse at everthing else.

[Crafty_Pat]

This is apples and oranges, folks. The PC and NPC systems are constructed on different foundations for a reason. The reality is that while one GM might find throwing several NPCs at the team a reasonable solution, another GM might not desire that solution, or it might not serve the needs of his world or story.

We have to make sure that both options are viable, which means that the highest end of the NPC system MUST be able to produce a single NPC that's challenging to an entire party of PCs. Does that mean that an inexperienced or abusive GM can dominate the environment and overshadow the party? Absolutely, but that's a necessary evil given the (again, vital) design goal at hand.

The solution is not to balance NPCs against PCs - well, not exactly, there still needs to be a cap, of course. It's to educate GMs in how to best (read: dramatically, fairly, and most importantly in the interest of fun) challenge their parties with the tools (remember, it's a toolkit) at their disposal.

[Regularguy]

This is apples and oranges, folks. The PC and NPC systems are constructed on different foundations for a reason. The reality is that while one GM might find throwing several NPCs at the team a reasonable solution, another GM might not desire that solution, or it might not serve the needs of his world or story.

We have to make sure that both options are viable, which means that the highest end of the NPC system MUST be able to produce a single NPC that's challenging to an entire party of PCs.

If that sort of NPC is -- and, indeed, MUST be -- a viable option, then why isn't my agency doing their best with agents like that?  The other side is apparently fielding NPC operatives who can each match an entire party of PCs; why is our side wasting time with guys who can't even aspire to be the best of the best?

[Desertpuma]

Because the GM is creating obstacles for your agents.

[Crafty_Pat]

This is apples and oranges, folks. The PC and NPC systems are constructed on different foundations for a reason. The reality is that while one GM might find throwing several NPCs at the team a reasonable solution, another GM might not desire that solution, or it might not serve the needs of his world or story.

We have to make sure that both options are viable, which means that the highest end of the NPC system MUST be able to produce a single NPC that's challenging to an entire party of PCs.

If that sort of NPC is -- and, indeed, MUST be -- a viable option, then why isn't my agency doing their best with agents like that?  The other side is apparently fielding NPC operatives who can each match an entire party of PCs; why is our side wasting time with guys who can't even aspire to be the best of the best?

The short and true answer: because it's a game, and sometimes the story has to explain the rules, rather than the other way around.

The reality at play here: you simply CANNOT, nor should you try, to represent every mechanic in story terms. That way lies madness. Some things are simply necessary to make the game fun and challenging - in that order, and because without challenge RPGs simply aren't fun, in our opinion.

[Doublebond]

This is apples and oranges, folks. The PC and NPC systems are constructed on different foundations for a reason. The reality is that while one GM might find throwing several NPCs at the team a reasonable solution, another GM might not desire that solution, or it might not serve the needs of his world or story.

We have to make sure that both options are viable, which means that the highest end of the NPC system MUST be able to produce a single NPC that's challenging to an entire party of PCs.

If that sort of NPC is -- and, indeed, MUST be -- a viable option, then why isn't my agency doing their best with agents like that?  The other side is apparently fielding NPC operatives who can each match an entire party of PCs; why is our side wasting time with guys who can't even aspire to be the best of the best?

I don't get you.

When you get down to it, what you're objecting to here is the potential the system has for great difficulty. Why are you objecting to the mere possibility of a serious challenge to the players?