Spycraft 2.0 - Failed Design?

[koz]

As I'm going to be in a mechanical advisory role for a friend of mine who is going to be running a game using this system, I picked it up and started reading it last night. After grinding my way through the first chapter of mechanics (Character Creation, I think), which made absolutely zero sense no matter how many times I turned the book around, I then moved onto the rules for skills, and my ears started bleeding. I don't know why this game receives all the praise I've heard it receives, and frankly, I'm in half a mind to counsel my friend to use anything other than it. Am I on the right track, or am I missing something here?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Spycraft characters are disposable.

[Caedrus]

What, specifically, didn't make sense to you?

[koz]

Spycraft characters are disposable.

Yeah, I noticed that. Along with the worst aspects of the 3.5 DnD system, such as: 'zillions of bullshit bonuses', despite their (totally meaningless) skill caps; arbitrary values of everything (as, absent a CR system, I literally have no clue in hell whether my PC is 'good enough' at any level); the fact that shooting 100 guys (or heck, 100 fucking bats) earns me a better reward than disarming the bomb their boss put in the mall (unless getting to said bomb is convoluted as all hell, in which case killing 100 guys is easier than disarming said bomb), which is basically a Final Fantasy-style XP dance in the woods; the fact that a vast majority of feats are made of 4E style skill bonuses, to say nothing of the fact the game still insists on feat trees... yeah, I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

This is not to say the game has nothing salvageable - the various minigames, such as chases, brainwashing etc. are probably the best execution of 'skill challenges' I have seen yet, even if they all boil down to something close to 'roll X, and roll it hard', and the class abilities are, at the very least, interesting. However, frankly, I'm not sure how this system... functions as such on a mechanical level, due to a complete lack of benchmarks. The only one I really established is that I can set a world record for long jumps by a bunch of skill points and a feat at level 10... roughly 68% of the time.

Seriously, I'm not sure who advertised this system as good. Or why, for that matter.

[Nicklance]

Would Spycraft 1.0 be better?

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Spycraft 2.0 is the most solid implementation of the d20 system ever.

After grinding my way through the first chapter of mechanics (Character Creation, I think), which made absolutely zero sense no matter how many times I turned the book around, I then moved onto the rules for skills, and my ears started bleeding. [...] Am I on the right track, or am I missing something here?

Don't read the game expecting it to be simple. The learning curve is fucking steep. Skills do things instead of wasting valuable character sheet space. Everything in the game that exists exists because of a skill, from structures to guns to manhunts to computer hacking. Yeah, your ears will bleed. Take it slow. Bleed out more slowly. It comes together once you've gotten used to it.

Spycraft characters are disposable.

The fuck? Spycraft characters are among the most competent of any d20 iteration barring some kind of bullshit superhero game. Tunnels and Trolls characters are disposable. 1st edition D&D fighters are disposable. When the game literally scales to your character, you are anything but disposable. You're the fucking hero.

['Z]illions of bullshit bonuses'...

There are 6 different kinds, and that includes fucking size. Grow up.

despite their (totally meaningless) skill caps...

Meaningless how? The idea was to stop folks who have 1 rank in something from being uber experts because they have 1 rank in something. In D&D 3.0, if you've an Int 28 or whatever and throw 1 rank into Knowledge (Bungholes), you can, with the right application of modifiers, be an expert Bungholist. You can't do that with 1 rank in a skill in Spycraft 2.0. This is a good thing(TM).

arbitrary values of everything (as, absent a CR system, I literally have no clue in hell whether my PC is 'good enough' at any level)...

Dude, the game scales to your character, so you're always good enough. The CR system is bullshit. Spycraft 2.0 replaced it with something better. Don't dismiss it because you don't understand it yet.

[T]he fact that shooting 100 guys (or heck, 100 fucking bats) earns me a better reward than disarming the bomb their boss put in the mall (unless getting to said bomb is convoluted as all hell, in which case killing 100 guys is easier than disarming said bomb), which is basically a Final Fantasy-style XP dance in the woods...

I don't even want to get into this. Do you actually use the XP rewards from the DMG? Seriously? Dude, you huck at the PCs what you think they earned, and you're done. But, seriously, adventure design, by the book is a challenge. I actually preferred 1.0's adventure design structure. However, the rest of the system is so robust that I can deal.

[T]he fact that a vast majority of feats are made of 4E style skill bonuses, to say nothing of the fact the game still insists on feat trees...

Most feat trees are 3-4 feats long, nearly every class gets bonus feats, and all those feats all do things. Those +2/19-20 feats you're bitching at are awesome in play. They are not just a +2/+2 D&D screw. Remember, every skill is important, and Critical Successes are meaningful. Further, I could do the math, but, really, there is one feat per two skills. And a metric shitload of other feats. You're talking out your ass. Learn the game.

However, frankly, I'm not sure how this system... functions as such on a mechanical level, due to a complete lack of benchmarks. The only one I really established is that I can set a world record for long jumps by a bunch of skill points and a feat at level 10... roughly 68% of the time.

Um. Dude. Really? This bothers you? Level 10 and your character's an Olympian? Seriously? At what level would you prefer folks to set world records?

Spycraft 2.0 straight-up rocks. Yeah, it's work, but once you know it, it does nearly everything right.

[koz]

Ok, Hey_I_Can_Chan, you're an obvious fanboy. However, to humour you, I'll respond.

I take great offence at your belief that Spycraft in any way, shape or form constitutes a great or even good take on the d20 system. Like, at all. It is full of so much nonsense that I hardly have words to describe it. It represents applying band-aids to fix gaping chest wounds - solutions which don't address the fundamental problems at all. Seriously, I'm not even sure why anyone would think it good.

Complexity, complexity

Walls aren't steep!

There is no good reason whatsoever for a game to have such a steep learning curve. This is not something that's positive or useful at all - all it does is alienate new players and require them to spend more time over what is essentially a technical document than is strictly necessary. The aim should be to make the rules easy to pick up and use - which Spycraft 2.0 most certainly isn't. I couldn't make any sense of Character Creation at all - I literally had no idea in hell what half the stuff meant until I'd read the rest of the book. Now, admittedly, this is a common problem in RPG systems, but let me show you a comparison between ways to write abilities that might make the learning curve less steep:

Woodland Stride (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.

Now, I may not know what the (Ex) thing means, but I can see, pretty darn clearly, what this is trying to say to me, even without any rules knowledge. Compare that to this:

Persistent: Your great work must often be done over long periods of time, accomplished with dedication as much as aptitude. Before the first Challenge of any Complex Task (see page 99), you may spend and roll 1 action die. You may then take 10
(see page 97) with a number of Challenges as part of this task
equal to the action die result. Further, the amount of time
required for each skill check with which you take 10 as part of this
Complex Task is not doubled. This ability may only be used once
per Complex Task.

What the fuckity fuckstar? Seriously, this couldn't be less user-friendly if it tried! Now, admittedly, if you know what it's talking about, it makes a lot more sense, but to someone who had never encountered the system before, this is a wall of very discouraging text, which honestly could have been made a lot less annoying.

Bullshit Bonuses? Sign me up!

More is less.

Six bullshit bonus types are far, far too many. Seriously, there is no need at all to have more than just one. The fact the game retains six is a flaw, on an objective level, as this achieves nothing except devaluing ranks and stats, which are highly limited by the game - and for good reason. However, adding all these bonuses is basically making all of this mean less - and since skills are so integral to the game, pushing people apart on the RNG is not beneficial at all.

Honestly, why do size bonuses add anything meaningful to the game? Honestly, you're playing mostly human-sized individuals - there's even less reason for this bonus than there is in DnD, where people seriously go all over the place in terms of physical stature. Seriously, the game retains size bonuses to hiding, which mean that Small beings are harder to spot relative other Small beings, and that giants have a disadvantage when hiding from other giants. What the fuckity fuckstar? And you seriously have the nerve to defend this as a good thing and tell me to grow up?

No bullshit bonus does anything except force people apart on the RNG and make the game an exercise in dumpster-diving for every possible bonus type you can get. This is stupid, is not beneficial, but is clearly designed to cater to people like you, because you're obviously a mechanical elitist who wants everyone without the desire to spend hours and hours learning and perfecting the mechanics to be at a disadvantage so you can laugh at them and win the game. If this is how you get your gaming jollies, please, enjoy yourself - I'd rather not game with you. Or anyone who shares your views either.

The skill caps thing is related - the only reason this redundant and stupid mechanic is there is to prevent dumpster-diving of bonuses pushing people too far off the RNG. It is a stupid idea because it can be fixed easily by, you know, not having such bonuses to begin with, maybe? Honestly, it's addressing the wrong problem with the wrong solution.

Scaling is something you do to a fish

Diversity is strength. Binarity is ULTIMATE POWER.

Your claim that the game scales to you is ten kinds of bullshit. First of all, NPCs are built to an XP total. This does not mean their modifiers are in any way correspondent to anything. I literally have no clue what 85 XP means in terms of attack bonuses, AC, skill modifier, hit points... honestly, it tells me absolutely nothing at all. The skill-related stuff is no better - it's like 4E skill challenges all over again, except that it's made worse, as there are basically no level pegs to hang it off. You then make the claim that this is somehow more balanced than a CR system, which tells you specifically what to expect at any given level. Forgive me if I'm having trouble taking you seriously, because you're reeking of religious logic and are in danger of appearing like a raving loon by making a claim which is patently false.

On a related note, your argument regarding XP costs and people not using the system, and thus it having no problems in it... what the fuck? Oberoni much? If you want a system to reward people for doing something, you make it so it does. If your system tells people that killing 100 guys with submachine guns is better for their characters mechanically than disarming the bomb they're guarding - guess what, they'll just pick up the handguns and go to work. This is stupid. Additionally, piecemeal XP is also stupid, because it encourages this kind of thing. Claiming there's no problem because you can ditch the system is so laughable, it actually hurts. How can you even take yourself seriously making claims that are that illogical? Oh wait, you're a fantard. Never mind, explains everything.

Feats are just a number

How about instead of being able to cut apart people with autofire, being a master at the quick-draw pistol action, or shooting out people's eyeballs... we'll just give you a +2 bonus on two skills! How's that?

Feats should give meaningful options that allow you to do different things. As I always say, 'do X, but better' feats are bad, as they simply encourage more binarity in characters, which encourages dumpster diving. Feats should instead 'do Y'. Now, I won't lie to you - there are feats in the system that do give you different and meaningful options. However, the vast majority of feats do things like 'get +X to skill Y in circumstance Z'. If you like binary dumpster-diving in your system, which Hey_I_Can_Chan clearly does, then you'll love this to bits. If you're everyone else, then you'll think it's stupid and move on with your life.

Feat trees are also stupid, as they require repeated investment into a resource to keep it level-appropriate. If I wanna take up a different direction with my character at level 10, I have to kick myself back to something that was appropriate at level fucking one. This is stupid and insulting, and should not be like that - instead, feats should autoscale, which would make sense and allow investment into a feat at any level to be level-appropriate. I'm not talking out of my ass here - you are.

The fact that you straight up don't deny that Spycraft's various minigames are just a case of skill-spamming and binarity show that you're also an inconsistent liar, which makes whatever little respect I had for you evaporate in the wind. Seriously, don't make bullshit claims here - you're wrong, and you know it. The fact you cap off your argument with such wonderful, logically-accurate and well-argued statements as

...Spycraft seriously rocks...

shows that you're just a bullshit artist to anyone who cared to read with even half a sense of alertness about them.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Okay. Let's go.

Ok, Hey_I_Can_Chan, you're an obvious fanboy. However, to humour you, I'll respond.

Fair enough.

There is no good reason whatsoever for a game to have such a steep learning curve. This is not something that's positive or useful at all - all it does is alienate new players and require them to spend more time over what is essentially a technical document than is strictly necessary. The aim should be to make the rules easy to pick up and use - which Spycraft 2.0 most certainly isn't. I couldn't make any sense of Character Creation at all - I literally had no idea in hell what half the stuff meant until I'd read the rest of the book. Now, admittedly, this is a common problem in RPG systems...

Shit, man, Champions, Shadowrun, GURPS? These games are all hatefully hard. You want to play an index card, seriously, pick a different game. Enjoy your Tunnels and Trolls game.

Six bullshit bonus types are far, far too many. Seriously, there is no need at all to have more than just one. The fact the game retains six is a flaw, on an objective level, as this achieves nothing except devaluing ranks and stats, which are highly limited by the game - and for good reason. However, adding all these bonuses is basically making all of this mean less - and since skills are so integral to the game, pushing people apart on the RNG is not beneficial at all.

What are you even saying? Are you arguing with me or some mythical game designer who you've a hate-on for? Really, D&D makes up a half-dozen new bonuses after a 3-martini lunch, and you're bitching at six ever? You know how rare any bonus is in Spycraft? +1s are worth it. You fight for them.

Honestly, why do size bonuses add anything meaningful to the game? Honestly, you're playing mostly human-sized individuals - there's even less reason for this bonus than there is in DnD, where people seriously go all over the place in terms of physical stature. Seriously, the game retains size bonuses to hiding, which mean that Small beings are harder to spot relative other Small beings, and that giants have a disadvantage when hiding from other giants. What the fuckity fuckstar? And you seriously have the nerve to defend this as a good thing and tell me to grow up?

Um. Yeah. It's a modern RPG. Aircraft carriers are harder to hide and easier to hit. And you don't think two giants playing hide-and-go-seek is a little bit different than two halflings doing the same? Are you high?

No bullshit bonus does anything except force people apart on the RNG and make the game an exercise in dumpster-diving for every possible bonus type you can get. This is stupid, is not beneficial, but is clearly designed to cater to people like you, because you're obviously a mechanical elitist who wants everyone without the desire to spend hours and hours learning and perfecting the mechanics to be at a disadvantage so you can laugh at them and win the game. If this is how you get your gaming jollies, please, enjoy yourself - I'd rather not game with you. Or anyone who shares your views either.

Wow. I'm there. Sorry I try to learn a game before I play it.

The skill caps thing is related - the only reason this redundant and stupid mechanic is there is to prevent dumpster-diving of bonuses pushing people too far off the RNG. It is a stupid idea because it can be fixed easily by, you know, not having such bonuses to begin with, maybe? Honestly, it's addressing the wrong problem with the wrong solution.

So you're getting rid of skill bonuses entirely? You need to write your own game.

Your claim that the game scales to you is ten kinds of bullshit. First of all, NPCs are built to an XP total. This does not mean their modifiers are in any way correspondent to anything. I literally have no clue what 85 XP means in terms of attack bonuses, AC, skill modifier, hit points... honestly, it tells me absolutely nothing at all.

This is just wrong. The NPC system scales to the characters. Read it. I know it's difficult, but the charts on pp. 444-5 show you how it works.

On a related note, your argument regarding XP costs and people not using the system, and thus it having no problems in it... what the fuck? Oberoni much?

Fair enough. I admitted it was a flaw for my particular gaming style. On the Interwebs, no less. Don't pound me for that. Does the system work as printed? Sure. Do I like it? No. Can you chuck it? Yes. Does the game expect you to? No.

If you want a system to reward people for doing something, you make it so it does. If your system tells people that killing 100 guys with submachine guns is better for their characters mechanically than disarming the bomb they're guarding - guess what, they'll just pick up the handguns and go to work. This is stupid. Additionally, piecemeal XP is also stupid, because it encourages this kind of thing.

So following the DMG and giving out XP per monster based on its CR is bullshit? Okay, story rewards should be everything. But mission design is at least predicated on the idea of, "How much XP should the PCs earn during this mission?" rather than "I wonder how much treasure I should put in this dungeon?"

How about instead of being able to cut apart people with autofire, being a master at the quick-draw pistol action, or shooting out people's eyeballs... we'll just give you a +2 bonus on two skills! How's that?

You have no concept of how valuable that +2/19-20 is in this game.

Feat trees are also stupid, as they require repeated investment into a resource to keep it level-appropriate. If I wanna take up a different direction with my character at level 10, I have to kick myself back to something that was appropriate at level fucking one. This is stupid and insulting, and should not be like that - instead, feats should autoscale, which would make sense and allow investment into a feat at any level to be level-appropriate. I'm not talking out of my ass here - you are.

What game--besides a Tome game--has auto-scaling feats? Further, you're misunderstanding the level-appropriateness of various feats. Is Ambush Mastery technically better than Ambush Basics? I dunno. That Ambush Basics feats gives a die of sneak attack, which is awesome. So even were the option available to just fucking skip that feat and move to the next one, most characters would opt for it anyway. But if you get both, you're better at ambushes. That's the point.

But that's not your point. You dislike feat trees. All feats should stand alone and function independent of prerequisites. In other words, one should be able to pick whatever one wants whenever one wants. And, at level 10, if one wants to take one's character in a wholly different direction--even though one's been playing the same character the same way for the last nine months, the game should totally be okay with that. WTF, dude? Don't we just call that introducing a new character? Seriously, what game ever has allowed a total direction shift halfway through your character's expected lifespan? You get a new feat at 9, 12, 15, and 18 (or faster depending on options) plus as many as 5 bonus feats. You want more than 9 feats for total direction shift? Find another game.

The fact that you straight up don't deny that Spycraft's various minigames are just a case of skill-spamming and binarity show that you're also an inconsistent liar, which makes whatever little respect I had for you evaporate in the wind.

Harsh. But okay. Yeah, if somebody tries to interrogate your character and you lack the Resolve skill, you're boned. But, dude, if you're up against a D&D monster that can only be hit by magical weapons, well, You Must This Tall to Play.

No game does what you want. But Spycraft does a lot of what d20 does better.

[koz]

*several deep breaths*

First, way to miss my point, on many, many counts. But, since I clearly have no life and a tendency toward masochism...

I have no desire to play an index card. Complex games are fine by me - I am a big fan of GURPS, Shadowrun and Champions, despite their complexity. Note this statement - despite. Not because; despite. I do not believe that such levels of complexity are good, or necessary in a game. Seriously, the fact that GURPS seriously spends a page on digging fucking holes, and highly detailed rules for overpenetration (and not of the sort that tends to come to mind when reading that statement, either) doesn't make it a good or positive thing. Ideally, games should have as shallow a learning curve as possible, and frankly, this is something I believe DnD does better than Spycraft. Ditto GURPS. Ditto Shadowrun. Hell, ditto every-fucking-system-I've-read-so-far-which-wasn't-retarded. Admittedly, this is a normative complaint - but not an invalid one by any reckoning in this case.

Bullshit bonuses are bad. They achieve nothing except push people off the RNG. Just because DnD does a worse job of keeping them in check does not excuse anyone retaining this stupid idea. Seriously, your argument is on a par with 'Well, FATAL is a significantly worse implementation of dice mechanics, so that excuses the fact that World of Synnibarr does it badly too'. No, it does not excuse it by any reckoning whatsoever, and I'm not sure how you can even make that argument with a straight face. If you're defending a bad mechanic by saying that someone executed it worse, you're entirely missing the point.

As far as fighting for said bullshit bonuses? You know what other system does this? 4E. Does that make it any less retarded? No. Simply put, binarity and dumpster-diving should not be encouraged by any system ever - it is a stupid idea which leads to stupid characters and equally stupid mechanical outcomes. Just because it's harder to dumpster-dive for said bullshit bonuses does not excuse their execution. Again, look at 4E - it's still retarded there, and arguably, bonuses have to be fought for harder under that system. It is not the rarity of these bonuses under dispute - it's the necessity of their very existence.

Dumpster diving is not 'learning the game'. It is an unnecessary, pointless impediment to new people learning the game, by generating trap options and requiring mechanical mastery of people who may not be willing or able to do so. The fact this is necessitated by this system is a flaw, and if you define 'learning the system' as 'learning every way to accumulate tiny shitty bonuses into something that ear-rapes the RNG like they do in Texas', then frankly, I'm not sure what planet you're from. This is ridiculous beyond measure, and leads to stupidly distended gameplay and a reward of system mastery unseen since the days of Monte Cook. Again, this calls 4E to mind - and 4E is stupid.

Now that I have come this far, I have arrived at a startling realization: you display all the characteristics of a 4rry. Seriously, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this point, but that's the most logical explanation I can think of. That, or you're some kind of Spycraft Paizil (Spyzil?) equivalent. Either way, I'm saddened that I'm being drawn into this discussion with you now.

Insofar as size bonuses are concerned... first of all, let me immediately call bullshit. Absolute size modifiers need to die in a fire. Giants are not at a hiding disadvantage against other giants in giant sized surroundings. Gnomes are not at a hiding advantage in their own communities. These two things only happen because we have absolute stealth penalties for size and no cancelling adjustments for spotters of varying size. Since Spycraft most certainly does not have cancelling adjustments for spotters of various size... yeah, what now? Plus, there is seriously no need to create a separate bonus indicating how good you are at hiding because you're larger or smaller - frankly, ALL modifiers can be covered under one bonus type, which obviates the bullshit bonus problem and and the stupid mechanics (such as the skill result cap) which this generates.

As far as getting rid of skill bonuses entirely... wow, your ability to take shit out of context and draw retarded conclusions is matched only by Bill O'Reilly. Seriously, you have just made me compare you to a 4rry, a Paizil and a neo-con idiot in three paragraphs - do you have any idea what kind of achievement that is? I do, and I'm saddened more by each passing second.

But frankly, it seems you deserve yet more, because you are also a fucking liar. That table you mentioned explicitly permits you, at FIRST FUCKING THREAT LEVEL, to generate NPCs with a three-point divergence on initiative scores, a three-point divergence on attack bonus, a five point divergence on defence bonus, a nine (?!??!?!) point divergence on damage save bonus... and it only gets worse at higher threat levels. Honestly, let's just examine the range at, say, threat level 10?

Initiative: +0 to +14 (14 points)
Attack Bonus: +2 to +14 (wow, only 12 points! /sarcasm)
Defence Bonus: +1 to +13 (well, at least they're consistent with their stupid!)
Resillience Bonus:+1 to +10 (wow, their most disciplined yet!)

Honestly, I could go on, but this proves you to be a liar on a par with George W. Bush. And look what you made me compare you to now! Seriously, with divergence THIS wide, you may as well have NPCs made of arbitrarium, especially at higher levels. Wow, what am I seeing here? Yeah, that's right.

4E!

Again, I reiterate that you're probably a 4rry.

However, no, you don't stop there. You have to take it further, by basically handwaiving Oberoni. Yes, this is what you did. To quote you:

Does the system work as printed? Sure. Do I like it? No. Can you chuck it? Yes. Does the game expect you to? No.

Now, given who I compared you to, I sorta expected that. So let me make it really fucking simple to get.

If I paid someone money for a product, I expect it to work. If it does not work, and I have to patch said product with my own time, then the product is flawed. Nobody finds the idea of buying a toaster which only toasts one side of your bread when it claimed it would toast both something that is acceptable, but for a gaming product? Of course it's not a problem!

Fucking 4rries....

On a related note: Yes, giving out per-monster XP is bullshit. Giving out numerical XP in general is bullshit - I point which I emphatically stated several times. But since you're also having problems with reading comprehension, let me make it real fucking simple for you:

Piecemeal, numerical XP is bullshit of the highest order.

Now that we have that out of the way with, let me explain precisely why the Spycraft take on this already stupid concept is more stupid. The DMG has rewards for completing quests - it's in there, trust me. The problem is, if monsters give out more XP, people will just wrestle all the count's hound dogs instead of going in and saving the princess. And in Spycraft, the only way to make disarming that bomb worthwhile relative to killing all the thugs according to the fucking system is by making it so complex, that killing said thugs becomes easier in comparison. If you fail to get how this is retarded, I don't know what else I can say.

Since you are clearly attached to the idea of dumpster-diving and hyperspecialization as being all the rage, this next idea is gonna be fucking novel to you, so I'll be as gentle as possible. YES, feats SHOULD stand alone and function independent of prerequisites. All prerequisites do is impede organic characters and encourage build planning and (yes, folks) dumpster-fucking-diving. And as far as taking characters in a whole new direction goes - you know, in action movies, this happens with great, incredible regularity. People do learn new tricks - and in a game, these tricks need to be level-appropriate when selected. If they are not, the game is flawed - this is why feat trees are flawed. Forcing people to restart every time they want something new, or because they prefer organic characters and not planning their builds, dumpster-diving and learning the system to the extent that they can dumpster-dive, is stupid, and if you advocate for that, you should *feel* stupid.

Lastly, yes, no game does what I want. This does not make my criticism invalid. Yes, DnD has plenty of You Must Be This Tall To Play syndrome - that doesn't make it right or good. You seem to be under the illusion that 'if it's better than DnD (3.5, at that), it must be the most awesommmest thing evarrrrr!!!11eleventy-eleven!'. Well, hate to break it to ya - it's not. Keep your 4rry attitudes to yourself, and learn to debate, analyze and think. I'd hate to think of what I'd have to compare you to next if this keeps up.

Seriously. Think of the children.

[Caedrus]

Wait. Am I correct in thinking I'm reading a guy yelling about how improving on D&D 3e is not a valid argument for the worth of a game because that's the same as saying World of Synnibar improves in some ways on FATAL, or how bad dumpster diving (going through tons of books looking for obscure optimization material a la D&D) is for him when he's skimmed part of one book?

If it does not work, and I have to patch said product with my own time, then the product is flawed. Nobody finds the idea of buying a toaster which only toasts one side of your bread when it claimed it would toast both something that is acceptable, but for a gaming product? Of course it's not a problem!

I do, however, appreciate a cookbook even if it has a few recipes that aren't to my taste.

[Username17]

I think the argument is more along the lines of:

Giving everything in numbers relative to the player numbers is not actually scaling them to the level or to the party if the relevant numbers vary by +/-10 or more between the PCs.

So the NPC generation system is basically nonfunctional unless the PCs are all making very similar characters, and that's a pretty unlikely situation considering that the game doesn't tell you what kind of numbers your characters should have.

Since there are no benchmarks for the PCs or for the challenges the PCs are supposed to overcome, the PCs end up with wildly divergent numbers. Once the PCs have wildly divergent numbers, the book's suggestion to make up some numbers for the challenges that the PCs will be better than is spectacularly unhelpful. To the point that they'd have been better off just going Magical Teaparty and not having a level system at all.

-Username17

[koz]

Thanks Frank, that is pretty much what I meant. Amid all the rage.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Okay, MS, I can say nothing about absolute Size modifiers, feat trees, or bullshit bonuses You're looking at a d20 game. Those're probably going to be there. I understand why you think those're bullshit, but calling the game a failure because of those is--I'm pretty sure--calling every d20 game ever a failure.

And that's a totally valid opinion, really.

By way of mission design, the game says (on p. 426) that the GC only spend half the XP on NPCs and the rest on other junk. The most expensive standard NPC--which appear in squads the size of the PCs' group--is worth 114 XP. The most expensive Objective is worth 125 XP. Essentially, the story reward remains greater. And, like in D&D, your XP is gained from encountering them--likely overcoming them, rather than flat-out murder. So if you achieve the objective while its being guarded by the special forces squad, you'd get both.

Giving everything in numbers relative to the player numbers is not actually scaling them to the level or to the party if the relevant numbers vary by +/-10 or more between the PCs.

So the NPC generation system is basically nonfunctional unless the PCs are all making very similar characters, and that's a pretty unlikely situation considering that the game doesn't tell you what kind of numbers your characters should have.

Aren't individual characters supposed to be more or less effective against some foes? Isn't that the risk when one takes any choices in any RPG? I mean, isn't Shadowrun's troll mercenary pretty much boned when he's up against an ultratech security system? (Unless, of course, he has some workaround to get rid of it by other means.)

Since there are no benchmarks for the PCs or for the challenges the PCs are supposed to overcome, the PCs end up with wildly divergent numbers. Once the PCs have wildly divergent numbers, the book's suggestion to make up some numbers for the challenges that the PCs will be better than is spectacularly unhelpful. To the point that they'd have been better off just going Magical Teaparty and not having a level system at all.

It's acually not that simple. There're three paragraphs in the Game Control chapter under the Game Control Basics under the Setting DCs subhead. It begins with, "When the characters want to do something that isn't handled with an attack or skill check, the GC must determine the Difficulty Class" (p. 397). MS point at that instead of the 82 pages of skills--all of which have table after table of DCs predetermined--is just odd.

[Username17]

HICC: The Flow chart works like this:

• The PCs pile a bunch of bonuses together - or not - and get a bonus that is somewhere between their stat modifier and 20 points more than that.
• Then the GM assigns bonuses to the NPCs. But he assigns them to what? The lowest player? The highest player? Some in-the-middle player?
• There is now no way to tell if the guy with all the bonuses stacked together is overperforming in that task or the guy without is underperforming - or both.

To make a game work, you need a fucking comparison point. You need to be able to say "this is a guard dog, this is a patrolling guard at a ghost cartel cocaine refinery, etc." And you need that so that you can have an objective understanding of what your character is good at. If you don't have that, your system is a waste of time no matter how many numbers it has!

If your opposed rolls are not rolled against objective numbers, there's no purpose served in you having numbers on your character sheet either. If there's no monster manual, you might as well go rules light and save everyone some trouble.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

To make a game work, you need a fucking comparison point. You need to be able to say "this is a guard dog, this is a patrolling guard at a ghost cartel cocaine refinery, etc." And you need that so that you can have an objective understanding of what your character is good at. If you don't have that, your system is a waste of time no matter how many numbers it has!

If your opposed rolls are not rolled against objective numbers, there's no purpose served in you having numbers on your character sheet either. If there's no monster manual, you might as well go rules light and save everyone some trouble.

Yes and no.

You're right that a level system becomes almost pointless when you don't have any objective comparison. However, there is one reason to have it, and it's a purely psychological one. Namely you just have big numbers because players like to see their numbers increase. In reality though, level based design is about stagnation. You want your foes to increase at the same rate as the PCs so that the PCs feel like they're advancing when they're really not.

Part of level based game design seems to be balancing that psychological illusionism aspect. When you make the game blatantly obvious about what it's doing, like 4E, there are a lot of players who revolt. And not necessarily from a game standpoint, but just from a mental standpoint where they hate actively confronting the fact that a good level system should have them be effectively treading water.

The same sort of thing happens between the 3E skill system and the 4E system. The 4E system is a lot more mathematically sound, but it also takes away the idea that you're getting any better at your skills. The 3E skill points give that feeling that you're investing points in something and getting better, while 4E's bonus system really just feels like a token bonus to keep you on the RNG.

Some players like not seeing behind the curtain and realizing how the level systems actually work.

I figure that's mostly the deal with Spycraft. It lets you think you're getting bigger numbers without directly rubbing it in your face that your character isn't actually getting any better relative to what he's doing.

[MGuy]

What?

I agree with Frank. I think there should be hard numbers somewhere that shows what an average character at a given level. I don't think levels are about stagnation. They are about actual advancement. Sure the DM can and should be scaling your challenges to fit with your numbers but there is always the concept of mooks and Boss characters who are below and above your level. Thus as you gain levels the things that are considered mooks get ever more fantastic until taking out a group of large dragons is as easy as killing a dirt farmer. On the opposite end of the scale Boss monsters become better and better and more insurmountable. To make sure that these two stay true you'd need a guide that shows how big you expect a particular character to be so the numbers you set for both of these are not "completely" arbitrary.

[Starmaker]

Part of level based game design seems to be balancing that psychological illusionism aspect.

Go read High Adventure. Low Level =/= high level, even though no numbers are given. Hunting down a bandit in a forest is not a job for a 20 level character. Paizils don't understand this.

4e is in fact illusionist, and the illusion sucks balls. Characters can't affect the world at any level and the monsters are recolors. The comparison to WoW had never rang truer. Level 1, you fight bears. Level 80, you fight bears. Level 1, stuff happens on Chris Metzen's whim. Level 80, stuff happens on Chris Metzen's whim.

[RandomCasualty2]

4e is in fact illusionist, and the illusion sucks balls. Characters can't affect the world at any level and the monsters are recolors. The comparison to WoW had never rang truer. Level 1, you fight bears. Level 80, you fight bears. Level 1, stuff happens on Chris Metzen's whim. Level 80, stuff happens on Chris Metzen's whim.

Well that's actually the fact that 4E doesn't have any real illusionism. While 4E made a lot of mechanical flaws, the thematic flaws seem to be the biggest.

4E really lost a lot of people on the feel of the game. It pretty much is just dressing up orcs in balor costumes, upping the numbers and calling them epic foes.

Everytime you level up you don't actually feel like you're getting anywhere. This is mostly because 4E makes it painfully obvious you're receiving token bonuses and that you're basically just treading water. In fact, 4E pretty much shows you how you're not getting any better as a swordsman relative to what you're fighting, you're just going up a level and figthing tougher stuff. But you're playing the same game regardless.

[koz]

Okay, MS, I can say nothing about absolute Size modifiers, feat trees, or bullshit bonuses You're looking at a d20 game. Those're probably going to be there. I understand why you think those're bullshit, but calling the game a failure because of those is--I'm pretty sure--calling every d20 game ever a failure.

And that's a totally valid opinion, really.

Exactly. However, just because they can be done that way does not mean that they should. Your argument is 'the cool kids are all doing it, so we should too'. Frankly, this is a stupid argument, as bad design is bad design, no matter what precedent you work from.

There is no specific need for any of this to be present in any d20 system. However, Spycraft made the choice (twice, no less!) to do so anyway. This is a valid criticism, but claiming that my criticism then obviates every d20 game ever as a result is... well, a little extreme. Likewise, it is not a defence for Spycraft, which you refer to as:

...the most solid implementation of the d20 system ever.

and then add that it

...straight-up rocks. Yeah, it's work, but once you know it, it does nearly everything right.

Emphasis mine. I take great offence at this, because quite frankly, it is none of these things, and handwaving away my criticism of the system as you have is misinformed and more than a little stupid. But then again, you are a clear 4rry, so if you still don't understand what I'm trying to say here, this will be my last point on this subject to you, and you're going on ignore.

Lastly, on your citation regarding NPCs vs. other stuff - your page reference makes no such claim on any part of itself that I could locate. As for the 114XP cap on stuff is assuming one opponent, which a fight would rarely consist of. Seriously, the GC can throw a whole heap of guys at you (and should, in many cases), whereas disarming that bomb, unless you throw in a million intervening bullshit tasks, will be one source of XP, ever, period.

[Murtak]

To expand on bullshit bonuses:

1) Your game has a RNG. D20s RNG is 20 units wide, but that is actually pretty large. The GURPS RNG is 16 units wide, but not linear, so it actually about 12 for practical purposes.

2) Different characters will have different bonuses for this RNG. I will refer to this as their palcement on the RNG.

3) The DM will frequently have different characters roll against the same difficulty. To do so he needs to assign a difficulty in the first place. He may assign a difficulty so high it is hard even for the most skilled of the characters or so low it is easy even for the least skilled. (Obvious I know). More importantly he will probably want to use each of those possibilities occasionally.

4) If you were already placed pretty low on the RNG, shifting it away from you can rapidly push you off it. The same is true for being placed high on the RNG and the RNG shifting down of course. Once you left the RNG you actually do not care about it anymore. That is bad. We want people to try to sneak, even if they happen to be clumsy, but more importantly we want even skilled burglars to actually have to try to remain silent.

5) If you want people to stay on the RNG and those people will face a moderate challenge the biggest bonus you can give them is of a size of half the RNG's width. If they are anywhere but in the center of the RNG that becomes a quarter. So at any point where you have different characters on the d20 RNG with a bonus difference of about 10 (fairly large, but not unreasonable given the diverse makeup of most parties) you may at most hand out 5 more points of bonuses before you regularly shove those characters off the RNG.

6) You actually need a core difference between bonuses to distinguish characters. We want Conan to smash open doors, we want Merlin to know about rituals. That means we must be able to distinguish between characters just from seeing a streak of successes and failures. If I recall correctly that has actually been researched as a difference of 30%. On the D20 RNG that gives us a mandatory difference of 6 points and a maximum difference 15 points. So the amount of collectible bonuses needs to be less than 10 points. This is a hard limit. Go over it and the game breaks. TO be conservative you would probably want to stop at 5 points worth of bonuses. Obviously DnD fails this test horribly. DnD does not break the RNG, it mutilates it and then pisses on the remains. But most other games fail this test as well, just not as hard.


Now, I don't know Spycraft but from what I read here it fails this test. If we say attribute scores generate our initial difference to distinguish characters we have +2 from feats, probably at least another +2 from equipment and another bullshit bonus (size bonuses and penalties will do nicely) starts to break the RNG. Sometimes I start to think attribute scores are really all most games need ...

[Draco_Argentum]

Go read High Adventure. Low Level =/= high level, even though no numbers are given. Hunting down a bandit in a forest is not a job for a 20 level character. Paizils don't understand this.

If you're going to keep people on the RNG the numbers really will just be treading water. The everything else shouldn't do that but the numbers have to or the maths just falls apart.

[koz]

Now, I don't know Spycraft but from what I read here it fails this test. If we say attribute scores generate our initial difference to distinguish characters we have +2 from feats, probably at least another +2 from equipment and another bullshit bonus (size bonuses and penalties will do nicely) starts to break the RNG. Sometimes I start to think attribute scores are really all most games need ...

Oh, it's much worse than this. To quote Spycraft:

MODIFIER TYPES

For your convenience, here’s a complete list of Spycraft 2.0 modifier types, their ranges, and when they come into play.

Discretionary: The GC applies these modifiers to reflect miscellaneous circumstances in the situation and environment (see page 92). Discretionary modifiers range from –4 to +4.

Insight: Origins and special skill checks offer these bonuses, which represent keen understanding. Insight bonuses range from +1 to +6.

Gear: Gear and gadgets offer or trigger these modifiers, which range from –4 to +4.

Morale: Class abilities and other effects that bolster or shake confidence apply these modifiers, which range from –4 to +4.

Size: The Size of a character or object affects its Defense and attack checks (with modifiers ranging from –16 to +16), as well as Blend/Stealth and Sneak/Hide checks (with modifiers ranging from –20 to +20).

Synergy: Complementary skills and special skill checks offer these modifiers, which represent interlocking utility. Synergy modifiers range from –5 to +5.

Yeah... bullshit bonuses, in the house.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Still going.

However, just because [things the designers chose] can be done that way does not mean that they should [be done that way]. Your argument is 'the cool kids are all doing it, so we should too'. Frankly, this is a stupid argument, as bad design is bad design, no matter what precedent you work from.

There is no specific need for any of this to be present in any d20 system. However, Spycraft made the choice (twice, no less!) to do so anyway. This is a valid criticism, but claiming that my criticism then obviates every d20 game ever as a result is... well, a little extreme.

As I've said before, no d20 game does what you want it to do. You're never going to be happy with one until you write it. That's not just handwaving. That--given your vehemence--is utter truth.

So far, other's mathematical analyses have shown that...

You actually need a core difference between bonuses to distinguish characters. We want Conan to smash open doors, we want Merlin to know about rituals. That means we must be able to distinguish between characters just from seeing a streak of successes and failures. If I recall correctly that has actually been researched as a difference of 30%. On the D20 RNG that gives us a mandatory difference of 6 points and a maximum difference 15 points. So the amount of collectible bonuses needs to be less than 10 points. This is a hard limit. Go over it and the game breaks. TO be conservative you would probably want to stop at 5 points worth of bonuses. Obviously DnD fails this test horribly. DnD does not break the RNG, it mutilates it and then pisses on the remains. But most other games fail this test as well, just not as hard.

while you even pointed out that for Spycraft NPCs at level 10, at the most extreme edge, their

Initiative: +0 to +14 (14 points)

was bullshit. So you're quibbling over a liberal endpoint that consists of about a +4 bonus more than it should be. That seems awfully close. And--seriously--compared to D&D, that's fucking gold.

I never claimed the game was perfect--not even in my first post--, but thanks for quoting my first post anyway. Because while I said that

[It's]the most solid implementation of the d20 system ever.

and

It straight-up rocks. Yeah, it's work, but once you know it, it does nearly everything right.

I'm sorry I didn't preface that with, "Which has been published," and, "For a d20 system which we all know is bullshit anyway."

Lastly, on your citation regarding NPCs vs. other stuff - your page reference makes no such claim on any part of itself that I could locate. As for the 114XP cap on stuff is assuming one opponent, which a fight would rarely consist of. Seriously, the GC can throw a whole heap of guys at you (and should, in many cases), whereas disarming that bomb, unless you throw in a million intervening bullshit tasks, will be one source of XP, ever, period.

Will you read the fucking book? You're being willfully ignorant. Page 452: "The XP reward for each standard NPC and animal antagonist is added to the mission reward only once, no matter how many times the NPC is encountered during the misssion or how the encounter is resolved." This goes on and on.

This actually makes it more rewarding from a pure XP level to complete objectives than it does murdering dudes. If your PCs are dumbasses and just storm the compound, they'll fight a motherfucking shitload of guards, but all of those guards combined are one, flat XP reward no matter how many are done in. However, if the objectives inside the compound are interrogate the scientists, liberate the Maguffin, and then blow the shit out of the compund when they leave, they can get XP for all three of those. Thus the smart play is to do those and grab your XP because chances are during one of those things, you'll find some convenient guards to encounter.

The idea is you have objectives at the drug lord's compound where you find him and his guards. Then you go to the ninjas' palace where you have objectives and boatloads of ninjas. Then you go to the ritual site where you have objectives, cultists, and a Lovecraftian horror. It's cinematic. It even uses the phrase scenes as a game term.

And, just in case I have yet to be added to your ignore list, there's this:

Discretionary: The GC applies these modifiers to reflect miscellaneous circumstances in the situation and environment (see page 92). Discretionary modifiers range from –4 to +4.

Which, if they're not in your game, is bullshit.

Insight: Origins and special skill checks offer these bonuses, which represent keen understanding. Insight bonuses range from +1 to +6.

This maxes out at 20th level or at 14th level, depending.

Gear: Gear and gadgets offer or trigger these modifiers, which range from –4 to +4.

Getting the maximum requires a pretty major use of resources and lasts 10 minutes. After that, you can't use for the rest of the mission.

Morale: Class abilities and other effects that bolster or shake confidence apply these modifiers, which range from –4 to +4.

+1s are easy, +2s are difficult to get, and +3 or higher are rare.

Size: The Size of a character or object affects its Defense and attack checks (with modifiers ranging from –16 to +16), as well as Blend/Stealth and Sneak/Hide checks (with modifiers ranging from –20 to +20).

Yeah. Mentioned already.

Synergy: Complementary skills and special skill checks offer these modifiers, which represent interlocking utility. Synergy modifiers range from –5 to +5.

The most common type of bonus, which is granted when another skill you have applies to the task at hand. You get this at the rate of a +1 synergy bonus per 5 skill ranks you have in the associated skill. This bonus is spelled out on two pages of charts on pp. 93-4, and some skills have no synergy bonuses available at all.

By the way, I'm using the Spycraft Roleplaying Game, version 2.0, second printing. My citations are accurate. Maybe you're using the first printing?

Finally, Frank, the game does have an objective measure of opposed checks against NPCs: NPCs are assigned values, and, despite that value depending on how many PCs there are, the math is totally doable via the charts. A PC can see how he stacks up aganst a guard dog or a security guard on an individual level or as part of a group of PCs. The numbers are there, they're just on a chart instead of hardcoded. Because this means that higher level PCs encounter more dangerous dogs, and dogs remain a threat. James Bond, no matter what his level, still has to get past guards and dogs.

This means being able to run status quo adventures without absurdity. Dogs are supposed to be worrisome. Guards are supposed to be an annoyance. Rather than coming up with Guard Dogs, Super Dogs, Uber Dogs, Ultra Dogs, and Mega Dogs, there are just Guard Dogs, and you can totally look at just Guard Dog stats to see how a PC measures up at a certain level with a certain number of additional PCs.

[Murtak]

If you are going to quote me please do it correctly. 10 is the limit, not the optimum. In fact I specifically state (and you even quote that part) that 5 should be the practical limit of additional (read: excluding attribute) modifiers.

Comparing 5 to 14 does not inf act "seem awfully close". Heck, 10 and 14 doesn't either.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

I apologize, Murtak. I didn't mean to be unclear (which is why I boldfaced both the 10-point and 5-point statement). You pointed out that 5 should be a conservative limit, hence my use of the word liberal in my reply, and that 10 should be the maximum. Again, I was trying to stress how close to the limits you pitched Spycraft actually gets.

I'll note again that that's the high limit. The other examples MS states are within 12, 12, and 10 points of variance, which, for an actually written and published game, just ain't so bad.