Over the Fence, ideas for a modern system

[scout penguin]

http://www.dxpo.com/dx/05/images/vips/vip-bow02bb.jpg

Hello all. First, a brief explanation. I love history, especially the history of the Vietnam War, and the role played by Recon units like the LRRPs/Rangers and MACV-SOG. It occurred to me some time ago these units could make for an interesting RP experience. So I looked around, even asked here, and found RECON, by palladium games.

I liked it, for the most part. My problem? Lack of flexibility. A non mercenary character simply can't learn to fly a plane. There are no ways to learn skills outside of your MOS. The game lacks adequate support for playing the "other side" (NVA and VC). Some weapons where misrepresented.

There were also things I liked. Some things outright kill in an effective radius, like grenades. Damage affects your characters capabilities, and you can die quickly if you don't rely on your team.

But I am now interested in building a simple system for wartime RPGs, from World War II to current operations. Players should be capable of playing the type of unit they want by picking a general "type" or "power level". This could mean starting as grunts storming the beaches of Normandy or an Elite NVA sapper unit. They could evolve, joining and elite unit (or paramilitary group) is they go, or start off going on dangerous missions behind enemy lines.

My only requierments are that the system be fairly simple to teach, no more complicated then D&D 3.5, at the most, and that it maintains a level of realism (e.g. having cover is better then not having cover, standing in the open is stupid, ect.)

So my question is, what would you like to see is such a system? what are your ideas? What would you want to be able to do?

[DracoDei]

No PARTICULAR interest here, just a comment:
You might want to double check your grenade research. I am ~98% that having one go off in his hand (trying to get it out of the tank when it was tossed into his compartment) failed to kill a soldier (probably in one of the Gulf Wars).

[Immonen]

The first real problem I see with this idea is that soldiers in a regular army aren't very conducive to RPGs. You're given a defined skill set, and everyone in the party is presumably in the same unit, so all of you have said skill set. You'd either all be infantry, or the game would be extremely boring. Thus, there's little room for skill customization other than getting better at your weapon of choice.

However, if you did manage to pull it off, I'd like to see a system for automatic weapons that didn't involve a massive amount of attack rolls (ala Star Wars 3.5) or a system that ignores AC altogether (ala d20 Modern).

[scout penguin]

I was thinking of the wrong thing when I said grenades, it was arty/mines, not grenades, grenades just dealt more damage if you were closer. Sorry for the mix up.

Differences between characters would come about from differences in stats, exact training (You can be normal infantry, or you can be a medic, for example.) and character background. Did you grow up in a rural town, hunting as a kid? You’d likely be a better shot then that guy from NYC, but he may have other skills you don’t, due to the different background. Even if every character is the same MOS, these things would set them apart. Think of MASH. Most of the characters did, basically, the same thing, yet they were unique. Note that is not my intent for players to be part of a MASH or other “in the rear” unit (No disrespect to such units or any who served in them intended).

[DracoDei]

The first real problem I see with this idea is that soldiers in a regular army aren't very conducive to RPGs. You're given a defined skill set, and everyone in the party is presumably in the same unit, so all of you have said skill set. You'd either all be infantry, or the game would be extremely boring. Thus, there's little room for skill customization other than getting better at your weapon of choice.

However, if you did manage to pull it off, I'd like to see a system for automatic weapons that didn't involve a massive amount of attack rolls (ala Star Wars 3.5) or a system that ignores AC altogether (ala d20 Modern).


Differences between characters would come about from differences in stats, exact training (You can be normal infantry, or you can be a medic, for example.) and character background. Did you grow up in a rural town, hunting as a kid? You’d likely be a better shot then that guy from NYC, but he may have other skills you don’t, due to the different background. Even if every character is the same MOS, these things would set them apart. Think of MASH. Most of the characters did, basically, the same thing, yet they were unique. Note that is not my intent for players to be part of a MASH or other “in the rear” unit (No disrespect to such units or any who served in them intended).

Specializations within infantry I can think of that make sense based on my limited knowlege:

Rocket Launcher Miester
Heavy Machinegun Miester
Mortar Miester (was/is? popular among the Russians from what Clancy tells us)
Sharp Shooter (not exactly a sniper NECESSARILY, but at least the guy who actually bothers carrying around a telescopic sight for his assault rifle in a current day setting... there was an example in Saving Private Ryan, but he may have been using iron sights)
Medic
Combat Engineer (IE the guy you want disarming or setting demolitions charges/mines)
In a Viatnam or Iraq type setting you could do with a "Face" who speaks the local language and/or could talk a rhino into stopping mid-charge by asking politely.



I was thinking of the wrong thing when I said grenades, it was arty/mines, not grenades, grenades just dealt more damage if you were closer. Sorry for the mix up.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.





Incidentally, I just realized that I MAY have an interest in this system after all. Maybe. In the specific setting I am thinking of a typical squad/party would be an elite force of combat veterans (AKA "badass normals" to use the TVTropes term) except for one or two 18 year olds who might start out never having seen actual combat, but have the equivalent of growing up hunting their dinner with a wide variety of assault rifles and... well I would have to tweak the system a bit to account for the VERY MILD super-powers that those individuals have. Let me emphasize that I don't need you to create any such variant, just saying that it MIGHT be nice if the system were built with enough flexibility to allow such things as super-human clotting factor (NOT "healing" in the usual comic-book sense) paired with a pain-reaction that "knows" the body HAS said super-human clotting factor... oh, and allowances in the system for adding hold-out pistols, garrottes, concealable knives, and the unarmed/"barely armed" skills that would go with them.

[scout penguin]

That type of setting sounds awesome, DracoDei. I'll keep it, and things like it, in mind.

So far, I’m thinking that every character would have 5 main stats:
Strength
Intelligence
Perception
Personality
Agility

Each stat would provide a base for your skills, with you total bonus being something like Base + training bonus + other bonus +D(X) compared to number signifying difficulty. Skills would be determined based on background, training, ect, as well as gained over the course of a campaign. It is easier to pick up skills in training then in the field, if slower, and any player can eventually learn any skill. For example a character wanting to play a Navy SEAL would draw skills from Silencer, Intelligence, and Combat Engineer, and some skills from other groups. Some skills would not fall under these archetypes.

My planed archetypes are:
Infantry
Machine gunner/ heavy wepons
Radio Telephone Operator
Marksman
Silencer (E.g. good at stealth, knife use, silenced weapons, ect.)
Intelligence (Languages/ Interaction/ Face type)
Combat Engineer
Medic

If you think more areas need to be added, let me know.

[DracoDei]

Considered Radio Telephone Operator. Wasn't sure if there was enough specialized training involved for it to count as a character type, rather than just a matter of who is carrying that particular X lbs of equipment. On second thought I am probably overly biased in my thinking towards AMERICAN military norms, in which any grunt is expected to know how to call in artillery and etc. I do know that most Russian tanks in WWII didn't have radios because they were too afraid of the tank guys using the privacy to plot subversion. This meant they couldn't call for reinforcements to exploit the situation if they broke through the German lines.

On a similar note, Americans LOVE their cars. In some militaries (probably fewer and fewer as time went on) it at least used to be the case that most people didn't know how to drive, thus you could mostly disable a troop truck for the duration of a fight by shooting the driver. Come to that there is a difference between being able to drive in the ordinary American sense and having professional off-road rally racing as a valid career option if you ever stop being a soldier. Very much analogous from being able to pass basic certification with a LAW versus being the designated LAW guy in a squad versus being the guy who is 30 for 30 (or whatever) with LAWs in actual combat.

EDIT: I hear "computer hacker" is a specialization in A FEW front line units.

EDIT^2: As a different "personality" specialization, you have the guy who is inspirational, terrifying, or just has the right tone in their voice that they can get the squad member who just caught the "chunky salsa" that used to be their best friend full in the face back to combat status in seconds rather than minutes to weeks.

Also you have what in D&D terms would be "Knowledge(Tactics)" to figure out what the group should be doing at any particular time. It is very hard to represent this without either discouraging the PLAYERS from thinking, or abstracting the benefits of actually being a competent commander (including the grunt that the nominal commander knows enough to listen to) to a huge degree.

[DracoDei]

Oh, and here is an old review I remembered that might be relevant to MY interests (and the system in question could probably be chopped down to make the system you are actually going for) : http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=1937

[scout penguin]

My intention is to have a list of skills that players can pick and choose from. You get a bonus just for you training (official or not) or experience in an area. The RTO concept includes not just radio use, but Morris code, encryption, calling in reinforcements/arty/airstrikes/, working on the radio, field expedient antennas, ect. Some skills could even have subdivisions covering different things, based on different stats (Gathering info by talking to people=personality, using a computer or library= Intelligence, searching a house= perception, for example). Archetypes exist to help find skills that fit a broad category, allowing you to find ones that fit your character.

This freedom to pick skills means that every character in a modern setting may know how to use the radio, but every character in a WWII setting may not, due to needing training and the then new concept of squad level radios. Chosen skills are somewhat dependent on your ability to learn them, after all. Thus, a Paratrooper in France might not know how to use the radio fresh from basic, but given time the squads RTO could teach him.

[DracoDei]

Sounds good to me, was just helping flesh out said skills list really.

Somewhat setting specific notes/requests: Will need rules for dogs. Not so much attack dogs (although that wouldn't hurt), as bloodhounds and bomb-sniffers (one of the stock superpowers is a SOMEWHAT heightened sense of smell, not as good as a dog, but since you can tell the engineer what SORT of explosive you smell...). Oh... and chemical weapons rules would be nice. The setting has more chemical warfare than RL.

[scout penguin]

I just remembered a system I saw a few years back that had you pick a main stat and a skill based on what you intended to do. For example, if you wanted to teach a local soldier how to use an M16A1, you might roll Weapon (M16A1) + Intelligence, if you wanted to shoot it, on the other hand, that would be Weapon (M16A1) + Agility. Thoughts?

It would simplify "How do I do X ?" situations, I think. It would also simplify character sheets.

[DracoDei]

Simpler in concept (less rules). More work in actual play (have to think it through more often). Not giving a thumbs up or thumbs down here, just trying to frame the issue a bit better as I see it.

[scout penguin]

Good point. I'd just recommend that players take notes off to the side of common combinations that they use and the total bonus. Also, some things will be set in stone, like shooting (Agility + Weapon skill). The idea is to keep character sheets simple while still allowing a wide range of actions, all of which are supported by mechanics.

Each Attribute starts at -1 and can never be higher than 10.

Each level of play has a different cap on skills. These caps only apply at character creation. This is to ensure diverse, yet skilled characters. Each level also gives the number of starting points for attributes and skills.
You add you Intelligence bonus to your starting skill points.
Levels of play:

Recruit: You are fresh from training. Each character starts with 10 attribute points to spend, and 10 skill points. Skills cap at 2. Example: Cpl. Timothy P. Upham in Saving Privet Ryan.

Veteran: You've seen combat before. Each character starts with 12 attribute points to spend, and 20 skill points. Skills cap at 4. Example: Erik Brandt at the end of the book Soldier X.

Hero of War: You are the best of the best. Each character starts with 20 attribute points to spend, and 40 skill points. Skills cap at 8. Example: Frank Castle in The Punisher

Legendary: You do incredible things all the time, and stories of your actions are pasted around training camps like trading cards. Each character starts with 25 attribute points to spend, and 50 skill points. Skills cap at 10. Attributes may be higher than 10. Example: Big Boss in the Metal Gear Solid series.


Example: John has an Intelligence of 3 and is playing in a campaign. He has 13 skill points to spend, but each skill can be no higher than 2.

[DracoDei]

Sounds good... it means that the rules I need (tracking dogs, etc) may require greater changes to the system...

You probably want make it so each language is a separate skill (maybe with reduced XP costs for learning related languages). Obviously you get your native language for free (although maybe only to a certain degree... intelligence could be said to influence a person's vocabulary enough to make a small difference).

[scout penguin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/VietnamCombatArtCAT02AugustineGAcunaScoutDog.jpg

The Scout Dog.

Scout Dog

Strength: 2
Intelligence: -1
Perception: 4
Personality: 2
Agility: 2

Skills
Track: 6
Locate (person) 2
Locate (Ambush) 6
Locate (Trap) 2
Langue (Signal Handler) 4
(Silent Signal Handler): 2

Dogs receive a racial bonus of +2 to perception, and a further +2 to the locate and Track skills (If their heightened senses could come into play).

That do it? Numbers may need adjusting, of course, but you get the idea.

[DracoDei]

Location(Trap) seems a bit vague. I can't see a dog being especially good at locating the wide variety of primitive booby traps I can imagine (pungi pits, jaw-traps, ankle-noose snares, deadfalls, etc)... I also SEEM to remember that dogs are usually only trained for a single task (attack, bloodhound, explosive sniffing).

Then again, I don't know much about military dogs specifically.

[scout penguin]

The dogs would be next to useless if they could only detect one type of trap, both in game and in real life. Also, you'll notice that Ambush is the only thing he’s trained in, the other two are there to show the racial bonus. (Also, the dog may react to both those stimuli, even if not "trained to” but simply from experience and association. "When I smell lots of Vietnamese in the jungle, bad things will happen if we get close. I must warn the pack!"- The dogs’ thoughts.

[DracoDei]

The dogs would be next to useless if they could only detect one type of trap, both in game and in real life.
Precisely. I am slightly dubious of a "general purpose trap detecting dog". "Explosives", yes. Traps... not so much.

[scout penguin]

Hmm, I see your point. Of course, dogs do have drawbacks. you have to bring food, water, ect. for the dog, and the dog could give away your position. I'll start work on several catagorys of traps. Mabey based of activation method? The dog could be trained to look for tripwires, and thus not notice the trapdorr leading to a pungi pit... I'll post a list of skills I've thought of soon, prehaps sorted be time frame.

[DracoDei]

Hmm, I see your point. Of course, dogs do have drawbacks. you have to bring food, water, ect. for the dog, and the dog could give away your position. I'll start work on several catagorys of traps. Mabey based of activation method? The dog could be trained to look for tripwires, and thus not notice the trapdorr leading to a pungi pit... I'll post a list of skills I've thought of soon, prehaps sorted be time frame.
Ugh... no.
Don't "decide" anything here. Do further research and see if my hypothesis was right or wrong. I don't know hardly anything for sure.

[scout penguin]

Sorry for being gone for so long, started college.

Anyway, I'd now have to recomend Spycraft for the type of game we were disscussing, It works better for that "Hollywood Spec-Ops" feel. As I think everything needed is all ready there, I'm droping this idea.

HOWEVER, I may try to start "Updating" the RECON rulls in terms of new weapons and skills/skill variants to cover more conflicts like the Battle of Mogadashu, or the current conflicts in the Middle East. I'll start a new thread if I decide to do this though.