T20 or D20?

[Psion]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Spycraft 1.0 could not decide if it wanted to be 007 or the TV version of Mission Impossible. The class and feat needs of the two are very different, but SC 1.0 kept avoiding the issue both in the crunch and in the advice for running a game, and produced quite a mess as a result.

Again, with such vague statements I can't get what you are getting at, but will say this much: Spycraft 2.0 includes what it calls "campaign qualities" which are modular rules that you can insert to mold the shape of the campaign. It seems pretty clear to me that the default is much closer to MI, being a team game, but by using campaign qualities that deal with character breadth and competence, it takes on a more James Bond feel.

That the system also had issues dealing with the rare combination of the two didn't help. The superspy genre is rather hard on supporting characters (watch the bodycount in Ronin, for example), but if *everyone* is as script-immune as the lead, it stops being "superspies" and turns into Charlie's Angels or the A-Team.

Heh. Know what you are on about here. NPC rules were reworked, and this is one of the features for which 2.0 received the most attention. In addition to simplified handling, the way NPC damage is handled is changed. Special NPCs have Vitality and Wound Points. Standard NPCs have a damage save mechanic, so any hit can take them down.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by hunter:
Suggestions on fixes? Not the deadly part (don't want to change that ), but on the dual scale for vehicle sizes and non-lethal combat. Ship combat I am working on to a degree. I just reposted my working High Guard20 rules back in the Moot.

(BTW love the Quiet Man reference! One of my favorite movies)

Suggestions on fixes? Well you need to choose either the scale of vehicles as published in the THB or the scale of vehicles as published in the Traveller's Aide Vehicle guides. Mostly comes down to the vls to Displament ton conversion rate.

For Starship Combat, I came up with a fix, but it appears you have decided to go the other way. Here is my solution.

1. Use BAB and eliminate the gunnery skill. (Internally more consistent.)
2. Remove the +5 crit modifier for Spinal mounts.
3. Starship weapons have a maximum crit modifier of x4.
4. Spinal mounts do damage based on USP code not a flat 16 dice.

This eliminates the PMOS-Gunnery nastiness, especially with Spinal Meson Weapons. It slows down the hit on a 2+. It provides a reason to actually build something bigger than a Light Cruiser. And Drednaughts, especially large ones, actually might survive more than one hit. (Though they will get hurt.)

Further it does not destroy small ship combat, which High Guard did, at the same time.

Leave it deadly. It is correct. I love being able to have long brawls, but they do run a little long, I honestly don't know what to do about it, without making deadly combat, more deadly (which would be a mistake).

 

[Psion]

I would* rather focus on making the damage mechanic scale better than touch gunnery skill (it sort of bugs me that games like star wars try to stuff gunnery into BAB)

* - I say would, when actually I did write a mod to the spacecraft damage mechanic; I never really fleshed it out because large ship battles never came up that much IMC, so it never warranted much further attention. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Psion:
I would* rather focus on making the damage mechanic scale better than touch gunnery skill (it sort of bugs me that games like star wars try to stuff gunnery into BAB)

* - I say would, when actually I did write a mod to the spacecraft damage mechanic; I never really fleshed it out because large ship battles never came up that much IMC, so it never warranted much further attention. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.

VFR Gauss Gun. On a Pintle mount, BAB. Mounted in a turret, either Gunnery or BAB, on a Starship turret, gunnery.

Grenade Launcher, same thing.

Even with electronic assistance combat is still reaction time and hand eye coordination. Go one way or the other. Either it is all a skill and lose BAB or use BAB for everything and ditch the skill. If it is a skill then you have the problem of PMOS to deal with and the ability to hit someone or something climbs excessively fast, in a game where combat is actually deadly. Further you have to reallocate skill points so the combat experts can actually shoot accurately.

Now I have playtested this for 2.5 years. It does work.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Even with electronic assistance combat is still reaction time and hand eye coordination. Go one way or the other.

Um, no.

Obviously we differ on the issue.

Your may "work", and the way that the skill interacts with the combat system may need to be fixed. But I find that conflating gunnery and BAB doesn't "work" when it comes to properly modeling character types that would logically have excellent gunnery ability but have poor BAB because they aren't expected to engage in personal combat (navy, merchants). As such, I see BAB as including a sort of "coolness under fire" that doesn't apply so much once you are distanced from the situation.

If you want to massage around the line where the difference lies, fine. I wouldn't even be opposed to making it all skills, but I consider that a bit drastic and disruptive, short of a total re-release, simply because it would invalidate all existing characters. But lacking that, I think it's important to draw a line between characters who are good at small arms and characters who are good at ships weapons, and this is the simplest way to do it.

 

[Renard Ruche]

Another thought, the players can buy the PDF version of just the rules at the QLI shop or at DTPRG for about $10 American.