Barf Forth Apocalyptica
the swamp provides => The Regiment => Topic started by: John Harper on March 05, 2012, 02:54:32 AM
-
Here's the alpha playtest draft for THE REGIMENT, an Apocalypse World hack about soldiers in war.
- Playbooks for the Soldier, Officer, Sergeant, Medic, Commando, and Sniper.
- Moves and Weapons tri-fold.
- GM toolkit tri-fold.
- Regiment/Unit tri-fold.
Should you try this out?
You're a good candidate if you 1) Have played Apocalypse World and know it well, 2) Are a fan of war movies, 3) Can playtest a game from bare-bones components. If you're not all three of those, then I don't know. Maybe it's not the thing for you yet.
http://www.onesevendesign.com/regiment/the_regiment_alpha_1_0.pdf (http://www.onesevendesign.com/regiment/the_regiment_alpha_1_0.pdf)
I'll post some comments on the alpha and questions for playtesters shortly.
Thanks!
-
I love you.
So much.
-
Wahoo! I have a couple of players who would probably LOVE to check this game out.
Thanks for all your (continuing) hard work, folks! It's greatly appreciated.
-
Oh God yes.
-
John, how do you feel about online playtests?
I know some folks don't like their IP spread all over the internets, and other people like being able to watch a game in progress. I've been excited about Regiment, and I think it would make a great one-shot.
-
Thanks, everybody!
@DannyK: Go for it! And feel free to share the playtest kit with anyone you want.
-
If anyone wants to run a play by forum, I'm super excited to play in a game.
-
Officer Playbook
Re-write, harsh lessons move:
After a battle, if you lost any men during the engagement, mark xp.
------------
Sniper Playbook
Spotter typo:
If your sniper spotter is another PC, tell them they gain call the shots.
-
All Playbooks
"Gear & Spoils of War" should read "Loadout & Spoils of War" (as Soldier playbook).
-
Close assault seems like 7-9 and 10+ seem like the same option set.
Consider adding "or shell shocked" to the Lost in the fog of war.
Smokes - wasn't this also when soldiers started giving out chocolate? I bet chocolate gives you a bonus when dealing with children...
-
Close assault options are similar, but different.
10+ they choose:
- take your harm (they don't do any harm back)
- break and flee (they're broken and separated)
- surrender (captured)
7-9 they choose:
- trade harm (they do harm to you)
- orderly withdrawal (not broken or separated)
- barricaded (take no harm, not captured)
-
"Smokes" represent all barter items, especially including chocolate. :-)
-
You should totally bring candy cigarettes, Hersey's chocolate bars, spam, and saltines as snacks for your players. Plastic canteens of water too.
-
Halfway considering this rewrite.
Assess the Situation
When you assess the situation, roll+tactics. On a hit, ask the GM questions about what the fuck is going on. On a 10+, ask three. On a 7-9, ask two.
-
Heh. That's pretty good. If I was in the middle of a firefight, I'd sure want to know what the fuck was going on.
-
Mortar, Light (4-harm far messy indirect 2-crew setup)
Mortar, Heavy (5-harm ex messy indirect 3-crew setup)
Shame on me for missing these :(
-
John, how do you feel about online playtests?
I know some folks don't like their IP spread all over the internets, and other people like being able to watch a game in progress. I've been excited about Regiment, and I think it would make a great one-shot.
Heh Danny, what timeline are you, I'd love to play an online game?
-
Elements of Warfare sheet:
Make a Battle Plan
"...spend your hold 1-for-1 to highlight an opportuity opportunity..."
-------------
Bond moves, difference between Medic and Elements of Warfare sheet:
"When you see a fellow soldier go down in battle... mark xp."
"When you see a fellow soldier go down in battle... take +1bond with them."
I think +1 bond is correct, but I'm open to keeping the xp version.
-
Make a Battle Plan seems fun. I wonder how it plays out! I assume everyone in the unit will Help, and so the 3 holds will be the norm.
From the wording, it sounds to me like the roller gets to invent what the opportunities are. In this case, when I rolled to Help, I think I'd be lobbying for an opportunity that suits my character's strengths (or my idea of what's fun), so I'd be getting that +1.
I dunno if that's good, bad, or neither in your book; just thought I'd highlight what sounds like an interesting dynamic.
It also sounds like the roller gets to invent the map. Is this correct? If not, you might want to repeat the "ask the GM" language that appears in the Assess move.
-
Make a Battle Plan seems fun. I wonder how it plays out! I assume everyone in the unit will Help, and so the 3 holds will be the norm.
From the couple playtests I’ve run, usually the officer or the sniper make the move, since they have high tactics.
Helping is not as common as it might seem. First and foremost, you have to have some way to help (not saying that’s an issue here). Second, helping or interfering is not a guaranteed success. Like AW, there’s a chance that you expose yourself to “danger” and there’s always a chance you’ll miss and make things worse. It’s that chance to screw things up, I think, that acts as a deterrent. I think that is particularly true when you do have an officer or a sniper make the move, where they have a pretty good shot at succeeding to begin with.
From the wording, it sounds to me like the roller gets to invent what the opportunities are. In this case, when I rolled to Help, I think I'd be lobbying for an opportunity that suits my character's strengths (or my idea of what's fun), so I'd be getting that +1.
The person making the “Make a Battle Plan” move makes the call as to what the opportunities are. That said, the way a character helps is by bringing some new insight or important information to light. So, as the helping player, you could slant that information or insight toward your interests if you choose to. If the information or insight you bring to the table is juicy, good odds that the player making the battle plan will jump on it.
It also sounds like the roller gets to invent the map. Is this correct? If not, you might want to repeat the "ask the GM" language that appears in the Assess move.
The big picture map, in theory, should already be there. It’s the GM’s job to paint a picture of the world and one of the ways we suggest doing that is by drawing maps. Of course, the part where we say that hasn’t been released yet, shame on us ;). So, good question.
What this move is getting at is that you either sketch out your own map or overlay one that already exists on the table with your plan. The move allows you to add new details – opportunities – to the world that the GM’s already described* for you while at the same time, describing to the GM and the other players how you intend to carry out the plan.
Example from one of my play tests: GM has an area map on the table and the players just got their orders. The officer orders the sniper team to set up an overwatch position above the objective. The sniper makes a battle plan and hits on a 10+, getting 3 hold. Looking at the GM’s map, the sniper sees that there is a fair amount of ground to cover and a ridge near the objective, so the sniper spends the hold to 1) establish that there’s a ravine they can use to conceal their infiltration 2) there’s a good snipers nest on the ridge that overlooks the objective and 3) the sniper knows the range to the objective (for the doped scope move). The sniper follows through by making the infiltration engagement move and gets to the vantage point undetected.
*As in AW, the players are always empowered to ask the GM for clarification or extra detail about the world around them. So your suggestion about adding the “Assess” move already applies in general. The “Assess” move itself is intended to allow players to gain new or special insight into the world, rather than simply a better understanding of the world their characters are already enmeshed in. That said, “Assessing the Situation” is a great prelude to “Making a Battle Plan,” so if you’re looking for that edge, assess, then plan.
-
Thanks, Paul. I dig the general idea, just wanted to get clear on the procedure and division of authorities. So, let me see if I get it:
- I can ask the GM what I see at any time, and after a successful Make Battle Plan roll is no different.
- I can also attempt to Assess at any time.
- The GM can draw a map whenever they want, and I can draw a map whenever I want.
- Rolling well on Make Battle Plan allows me to add opportunities onto my knowledge of the area. I do not ask the GM what these opportunities are; I simply respect the fiction by not contradicting what's already been established*.
- Someone ought to add these opportunities onto some sort of map.
Correct? If so, I wonder if the wording on the Battle Moves sheet could make any of that more explicit? If not, probably not a big deal. But more clarity and less reasoning-thru-at-the-table is always nice in my book.
*This means that, the more that area facts are established, the more constraints I have, thus perhaps more inspiration. Cool. However, it also means that, the less that area facts are established, the more I get to make up whatever I want. I could easily imagine approaching an area with vague details, instantly rolling Make Battle Plan, then inventing much of the area, and only THEN rolling Assess, so the GM is constrained by MY established content.
Maybe a bug, maybe a feature, I dunno; just throwin' it out there.
-
To me, it seems fictionally weird to have a sniper giving orders; I hope that any Battle Plan that comes from a sniper is roleplayed as a suggestion to the CO, and the CO then says, "Good ideas, sniper. Alright, men, that'll be our battle plan!"
If you wind up writing examples of moves in action, that might make for a good example. Y'know, just to help groups avoid that awkward situation of, "Do what I say if you want the +1!"
-
Thanks for the gut-check on those moves, David. You can be sure that we are writing full-length guides for each of them, with examples, mistakes & corrections, the whole nine yards -- and this kind of first-blush response helps us a lot.
I think your breakdown is close to the way we do it in practice. Technically, though, only one person is in charge of what's actually present in the fictional landscape, and that's the GM. A player can't invent anything into being, including when they make a battle plan. They can certainly strongly suggest the possibility of something, but the GM ratifies it before it's "real."
Re: the sniper making a plan: that is something that will be dealt with by the game group and the characters themselves in the fiction. It's a fruitful area of the game -- "who's really in charge here?" -- that has never failed to be explored through play so far. I'm certainly not going to mandate how an NCO and Officer must roleplay when this move comes up. That would be spoiling the fun.
(Note, too, that making a battle plan does not mention "giving orders" at all. You're highlighting opportunities and advantages which give the bonuses when they're exploited, not specific courses of action.)
-
To me, it seems fictionally weird to have a sniper giving orders; I hope that any Battle Plan that comes from a sniper is roleplayed as a suggestion to the CO, and the CO then says, "Good ideas, sniper. Alright, men, that'll be our battle plan!"
In this particular scenario, the sniper was the sniper team leader and, acting on the officer's orders, made the move on behalf of the sniper team. The officer also made the move; but, for the remainder of the platoon, which was off doing something completely different. The sniper was given the vague order of "provide overwatch" and left to figure out how to accomplish that objective.
-
Paul, cool. I'm not surprised at all that sometimes it works out just fine.
John, as for leaving it to the group, I hear ya; that is fun to see what folks will come up with.
The one thing I'd try to avoid is the point where the mechanical incentives ("We want the +1!") are fighting the players' instincts for roleplaying their characters ("You don't get to tell me what the plan is!").
As a player, I am the guy who will simply object in the process of playing my character, and the +1 can go to hell. But stick me in a group with folks who really value their mechanical resources, and there could be friction.
If you'd rather not make that your business, I wouldn't blame you! Just bringing it up in case you do feel like addressing it.
only one person is in charge of what's actually present in the fictional landscape, and that's the GM. A player can't invent anything into being, including when they make a battle plan.
That is exactly what I would want, is consistent with every game I played for my first 15 years of roleplaying, and makes total sense. And yet, I didn't feel safe assuming it here. Perhaps there's a good reason for that, or perhaps it's because I've only played AW with story-gamers. I dunno. My only suggestion would be that you consider driving the "ONLY the GM EVER authors the landscape" m.o. home quite strongly (mnemonics, repetition, multiple references, etc.).
-
The one thing I'd try to avoid is the point where the mechanical incentives ("We want the +1!") are fighting the players' instincts for roleplaying their characters ("You don't get to tell me what the plan is!").
As a player, I am the guy who will simply object in the process of playing my character, and the +1 can go to hell. But stick me in a group with folks who really value their mechanical resources, and there could be friction.
As long as that friction is in the fiction, that's war movie gold!
-
The one thing I'd try to avoid is the point where the mechanical incentives ("We want the +1!") are fighting the players' instincts for roleplaying their characters ("You don't get to tell me what the plan is!")
David, your point is valid and we share your concern. It is our goal to tune the mechanics to suit their purpose, which is to facilitate roleplaying and to that end, we will look carefully at advantage boost cycles, such as +1 forward/+1 ongoing moves, very carefully. You are right to point out that this sort move is inherently unstable and must be damped or constrained.
In the case of the assist/interfere move, I believe the incentive for +1 advantage is adequately tempered by both the chance of failure (mechanical safeguard) and that the character must have a credible means to assist in a way that causes the significant advantage, GM's discretion (GM/fictional safeguard). The assist/interfere move is very similar to the AW move so it's fair to say that we didn't blaze any new ground here. AW's establishment of this move class and it's demonstrated track record lend confidence.
-
I played a guy with Explosives Expert at GPNW. I gave the feedback that some kind of mechanical benefit on a 10+ might be nice, especially as you 1) first have to roll that and 2) are expending gear.
I created a distraction and things blowed up real good but my pinned down buddies didn't really get any mechanically substantive relief from the distraction I'd created...
Thoughts? Is that all best covered by Beta GM guidance or might some kind of +1 forward or similar be appropriate?
-
Sounds like y'all are on top of it. Excellent!
Re: helping, the two problems I had in AW were:
1) The social nuances of saying, as MC, "Um, okay, good job justifying how you could possibly contribute to this attempt, but do you really think that would make a difference? I mean, really?" Perhaps there's no fix to this. Or perhaps an easily-referenced rule that specifies "significant difference, GM's discretion" would help. I dunno.
2) The "move" where you roll a stat instead of your Hx to help. The guy who had that stat highlighted totally went to town on this in a way that didn't thrill me.
-
If you're not happy with the justification for helping you can totally make that call (1), IMO. Do you feel there's a social pressure not to stifle player input in this case?
Why was (2) a problem, David?
I've seen someone else complain the helping (in this case in Dungeon World) is too powerful, but I don't see it myself.
Is it a problem with a mismatch between your idea of the fiction and what the player is trying to do?
-
Anarchangel,
1) The social pressure I experienced mostly came from:
Player wants to Help. Player's character has no obvious means to Help. Player thinks up very creative way to Help. Player feels clever. Player congratulates self and picks up dice.
Once it's at that point, it's harder for me as MC to say no and get the player to feel okay about it.
2) "Dude, stop Helping with every friggin' roll! Your character has no particular reason to care all that much, you're adding a lot of convoluted fiction to justify it, and it's just slowing down the momentum of the story and killing the balance of screen time. Yes, it's neat that you can earn 20 advances in a session, now STOP."
That's exaggerated for effect. That didn't actually happen. But it was going in that direction more than I was comfortable with.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure if this'll work at your table but I was having similar issues at mine.
What I did was just state that as PCs, just tell me what you're doing; I'll be asking that a lot. If it's a Move, I'll call for it and decide which one.
Also, only having one Moves reference sheet at the table helped.
Obviously, canny players will still narrate with Moves in mind, but it switched from "I go aggo" and "I hack and slash" and "I help/interfere" to just answering the "What do you do?" question in in-character terms, then as the MC deciding if that qualified as a Move or not.
Sure, there's sometimes a little OOC back and forth but each time that's an opportunity to talk about expectations and negotiate a common culture of play. Helps if you have good rapport with everyone at the table.
-
Hell yeah, Nathan! A group that accepted that would be my ideal AW group, as both player and MC.
-
Good points, all.
We definitely have our eye on the +1s floating around in the game right now. That will be something I'll add to the playtest questionnaire, too. We want assistance to be an important thing (warfare is done by teams) but too many +1s flying around ruins the tension.
I even have an alternate helping rule in my back pocket if we need it (something from Knife & Candle), but I'd like to see how the current toolkit shakes out first.
-
This is really great and it's a shame I hadn't discovered it earlier.
Couple of questions:
-Sorry to bring the balance issue, but was it intended, that Sarge's stats add up to +4 and Commando's stats to +5(two +2 stats in each set), while everyone else's stats add up to usual +3?
-Is there any move or smth about vehicle combat? I see only "how to destroy a vehicle". Is it because "regiment" is only about soldiers?
-Is the six playbooks considered to be all that needed, or will there be, e.g. Engineer?
-While I suppose that Sarge, Medic, Soldiers and possibly Sniper are usually all in one place, are Commando and Officer supposed to be away from the main unit at least half of the time(first infiltrating, second having command duties and all)?
-
- Yep, the Sergeant and Commando have better stats, on purpose.
- There will be a vehicle combat supplement, eventually, but for now the game is focused on dismounted infantry.
- There are more playbooks in the works, including an Engineer. But those six are the "core classes." Actually, the Commando isn't exactly a core class.
- The Officer is a Lieutenant, so they're with the platoon, out in the field. The Commando and the Sniper might be physically separated, but are also part of the platoon and are on the same mission as the rest of the teams.
-
1) Can you tell, why? I am obviously not trying to object your decision, I just would like to know, what kind of things has lead you to make it. I do some hacking myself, so it is quite interesting.
2,3) glad to hear that! also very much waiting on the Engineer.
4) I'm just thinking that instead of AW where people are usually have a lot of time separated, but their needs and GM's fronts usually press them to work together(or kill each other), you can have situation when whole game is played with three players in one group, and other two separately. How do you think it affects group dynamic and does it have any impact on the rules(and stats)?
Anyway, thanks for clear and quick answer
-
Hi
just downloaded the kit. Looks great. We are currently playing a story-centric Traveller Mercenary campaign using Bk4 and Mythic GME - would love to give it a whirl as "The Regiment". (a hack of a hack!)
Some questions/ideas:
* Is the soldier playbook too generic? ie should it be somehow split into FNGs, Loners, psychos, packrats, fixers, etc?
* In our campaign we play NCOs and junior/mid officers (but not the unit CO) and thus a large part of the command structure of our unit. I didn't see this listed as a mode of play but IMO it is a very natural one.
* civilians seem to be very low profile (except partisans), this may work for ww2 fiction but for many eras they may impinge more so maybe could provide some character options/hooks eg personal entanglements, contacts, ...
* suggest could have some downtime move for mercs to get a new job/ticket?
* in our campaign we've found media/PR to be an impt function of the (far future) merc unit. Obviously the current day has parallels with this too. This could be a new type or types of character but it also implies some inter-game move possibilities too - "manage coverage of past operation", etc
* vehicles should be vulnerable to small arms suppressive fire (esp APCs, half-tracks etc) I'm not sure if the current rules allow this. (I recall something about AP being required. I may be mis-remembering)
* should Molotov cocktails be AP?
* the vehicle stats make me a bit nervous that they are "too much" for narrative purposes, but we'll see what happens in actual play.
Thanks for your work on this.
rgds
rob
-
To Guns_n_Droids
1) The idea behind the Commando was that the commando is just plain better. John may be able to elaborate further. The Sergeant is the glue that holds the team together and most of the Sergeant moves are about helping the team, so giving that class one more stat point felt like throwing the player a bone.
2/3) As John mentioned, the vehicle section is in work. I’m hoping to start early tests with it with my gaming group soon.
4) Like AW, it actually seems to work pretty well. The roles naturally seem to split up into smaller teams and, as a GM, I like to split the PCs up a bit just so I can get some good NPCs in there with them.
To Robb
1) Maybe. The soldier is kinda the “everything else” Playbook. At the heart of the soldier playbook, though, is the grunt who steps back into harm’s way to get the job done.
2) Yes, that is a way you can play. Most of the playbooks have starting rank options in the same ball park. If you have a specific story concept in mind, change the options to suit your needs.
3) That’s a good suggestion even for WW2. Having down time to Blow off Steam is an important move and part of the game. The hook there is “bond with another soldier.” It wouldn’t hurt to loosen that up.
4) Here’s how I think the existing moves cover your question. Let me know what you think. Assess the Situation lets you ask any question – use it to get what you need to know in order to get what you want. Make a battle plan lets you outline advantages that give you +1 forward to your moves. Scrounge for spoils has +Intel as an option, which is the Regiment’s equivalent of AW’s Open your Brain to the Maelstrom – use this to pry secrets out of the GM’s head. Use Petition up the Chain of Command to manipulate the bureaucracy and get your way. Use Seek Help from Partisans to get help from the locals – “help” could be a job, or intel, or whatever. As a GM, use your hard moves to push them towards needing something. Recruits, arms, fuel, medical supplies, or help from others. Don’t forget to respond with intermittent rewards too.
5) I saw a pretty cool playbook out there called the War Correspondent – it was definitely trying to capture media and propaganda. We encourage folks to come up with their own custom playbooks or custom moves to play the game the way you want to play it.
6) Stay tuned for the vehicle rules! The short answer is, yes small arms can be used against vehicles, but…
7) No, Molotov cocktails should not be AP. In the Regiment, AP has a specific meaning in conjunction with the Hard Target move. Hitting an armored vehicle with a Molotov cocktail probably falls under the Are you Crazy move. In the case where the passengers or crew are exposed, then you just attack them normally using the Attack the Enemy move (They may get cover or concealment, though). Hard Target / AP is only required if you can’t get to the vehicle crew or the vehicle systems short of going through the vehicle’s armor.
8) If you feel the vehicle stats are too clunky for your narrative approach, don’t use them. Ask the PCs what they do, tell them to make a move, and then tell them what the consequences are.
-
Hi Paul
thanks
Re: soldier
- Does that mean multiple players can have this playbook? (ie unlike AW)
rgds
rob
-
Yes, absolutely!
And they can be customized with custom moves.