1
brainstorming & development / Re: 2G2BT
« on: August 22, 2018, 01:24:21 PM »
I'll be running 2G2BT at Gauntlet Con in October!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3
brainstorming & development / Re: 2G2BT
« on: March 27, 2018, 09:19:18 AM »
I've posted v0.12 to my blog. The link below will dig up all 2G2BT-related posts on my blog, including future updates (when they happen).
http://blog.trilemma.com/search/label/mecha
http://blog.trilemma.com/search/label/mecha
4
brainstorming & development / 2G2BT
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:47:32 PM »
I'm writing a short PbtA game about mech-pilot mercenaries as they struggle to gain fame and fortune as they hop from war zone to war zone.
The flavor inspiration is pretty much Battletech 3025 - the tech readout (I love it, mine's falling apart), not the novels (I haven't read any).
The heart of it is directly based on The Regiment, with a small amount of Urban Shadows somewhere in there as well.
http://blog.trilemma.com/2017/04/2btbt-010-mecha-rpg.html
The flavor inspiration is pretty much Battletech 3025 - the tech readout (I love it, mine's falling apart), not the novels (I haven't read any).
The heart of it is directly based on The Regiment, with a small amount of Urban Shadows somewhere in there as well.
http://blog.trilemma.com/2017/04/2btbt-010-mecha-rpg.html
5
The Regiment / Re: Modern Day Dungeon crawl - Project Long Stairs using The Regiment
« on: September 14, 2014, 12:51:19 PM »
As someone hacking the Regiment into a fantasy version, this thread was not what I was expecting. This is a hilarious and awesome idea. I love the idea of B company taking on the Tomb of Horrors.
I don't think Identify is too powerful at all, especially since they have to use downtime to pull it off. That will lead to them carting all sorts of stuff out of the dungeon to find out what it is later.
Does covering fire with a wand use up gear? :P
I don't think Identify is too powerful at all, especially since they have to use downtime to pull it off. That will lead to them carting all sorts of stuff out of the dungeon to find out what it is later.
Does covering fire with a wand use up gear? :P
6
The Regiment / Re: Damage?
« on: June 17, 2014, 08:32:16 PM »
Most moves are resolved using 2D6, as in base AW. Weapons fire, however, is resolved using a fistful of damage dice. The number of dice is, I suppose, the damage potential of the ammunition being expended (e.g. an assault rifle might produce 3d of fire), and the volume of fire reflects how likely each round is to arrive at the target, and ranges from Incidental all the way up to Concentrated. (The number of steps varies somewhat depending on the version of The Regiment.) I suppose you might think of it as 'volume of accurate fire'.
When bullets land, you roll all the damage dice, and then you cross-index the result on each die on the VoF table. For example, if you're firing your assault rifle out of a car window during a drive-by, that might be 3d Incidental. The Incidental row on the VoF table tells you that each 1 or 2 result has no effect (an outright miss), a 3, 4 or 5 inflicts Stress, and a 6 causes a Wound.
If you're shooting your assault riftle at some one tied up in the back of an industrial refrigerator, well that's probably Concentrated fire. You roll the same 3d, but this time each '1' causes Stress, each 2, 3, or 4 causes a Wound, and a 5 or 6 causes a Critical wound. (Again, this varies slightly by version.)
That's the basic idea.
One thing I like about it is that, against enemy firearms in particular, it's easy for the GM to spray the party by telling everyone to take 2d incidental, without having to be arbitrary about who's the specific target. Keep your head down, grunt!
When bullets land, you roll all the damage dice, and then you cross-index the result on each die on the VoF table. For example, if you're firing your assault rifle out of a car window during a drive-by, that might be 3d Incidental. The Incidental row on the VoF table tells you that each 1 or 2 result has no effect (an outright miss), a 3, 4 or 5 inflicts Stress, and a 6 causes a Wound.
If you're shooting your assault riftle at some one tied up in the back of an industrial refrigerator, well that's probably Concentrated fire. You roll the same 3d, but this time each '1' causes Stress, each 2, 3, or 4 causes a Wound, and a 5 or 6 causes a Critical wound. (Again, this varies slightly by version.)
That's the basic idea.
One thing I like about it is that, against enemy firearms in particular, it's easy for the GM to spray the party by telling everyone to take 2d incidental, without having to be arbitrary about who's the specific target. Keep your head down, grunt!
7
brainstorming & development / Playtesting "fiction first" games
« on: October 22, 2013, 02:59:54 PM »
So, spill the beans on playtesting fiction first games. Strikes me that the job is trickier, since you're not just trying to convey how the mechanics work, but you're trying to affect the GM's unstructured choice-making.
I would think that the main way to get this sort of information across is either by having the would-be GM play in your game, to learn by osmosis (not very scalable), or with "GM advice" essays, of the sort you find on combat in Amber Diceless. Not mechanics, but persuasive pieces on the GMing principles you imagine are most salient.
I would think that the main way to get this sort of information across is either by having the would-be GM play in your game, to learn by osmosis (not very scalable), or with "GM advice" essays, of the sort you find on combat in Amber Diceless. Not mechanics, but persuasive pieces on the GMing principles you imagine are most salient.
8
brainstorming & development / Re: Reasons to include a move
« on: March 03, 2013, 10:08:26 AM »
Ah yes, that's good stuff. Thank you!
9
The Regiment / Re: Three Stats?
« on: February 27, 2013, 09:47:29 AM »
If you were going to make a compelling argument in this direction, I think you'd need to investigate the allocation of moves to stats, and the role that plays in differentiating playbooks. A matrix! A matrix!
10
The Regiment / More play observations
« on: February 22, 2013, 01:14:26 AM »
Two Characters
Two characters is annoying. Sean has picked up a second Commando, and we can never tell which one of him is talking or acting, we keep getting mixed up. At one point he missed something in GM's description and accidentally narrated his two characters into the same micro-situation (sweeping a barber shop), something he'd been trying to avoid.
In discussion, it seems that in base AW, because of the slightly breezier, more plot-centric pacing, two characters are easier to keep apart. The analogy's not great, but this feels more like having two mouse pointers.
Challenges by Playbook
We're having trouble integrating snipers into a busy WWII battlefield. There's not much time to maneuver, so their vantage points (particularly in villages, where LOS is really obscured) expire quickly as the grunts move forward a block. Our snipers are winding up with a slightly vague position on the battlefield, drilling mooks one at a time, which is a bit anticlimactic.
One option is just to treat them like soldiers with specialized rifles, able to make hyper-accurate shots, but otherwise running along with the other guys.
The better realization seems to be that we need to mix up the time scales. Break up the action into scenes (we tend to play moment by moment, moving block by block) so that the sniper has a chance to do some forays, get into trouble, report back, etc.
We have a different but similar feeling problem with medics. I really think that medics need wounded PCs to work on. For a few sessions, Stephen (GM) was doing more detailed tracking of our NPC platoon members, and they started becoming a sort of 'unit hit points'. Tim's medic was busy fixing red-shirted ensigns, but this isn't especially dramatic.
I wonder if the lethality is just .. low? Of five regular players, we've had two Go Home, and a third (my guy) is nearly ready to do so, and no fatalities yet.
My gut tells me that Go Home should be less common than death.
Two characters is annoying. Sean has picked up a second Commando, and we can never tell which one of him is talking or acting, we keep getting mixed up. At one point he missed something in GM's description and accidentally narrated his two characters into the same micro-situation (sweeping a barber shop), something he'd been trying to avoid.
In discussion, it seems that in base AW, because of the slightly breezier, more plot-centric pacing, two characters are easier to keep apart. The analogy's not great, but this feels more like having two mouse pointers.
Challenges by Playbook
We're having trouble integrating snipers into a busy WWII battlefield. There's not much time to maneuver, so their vantage points (particularly in villages, where LOS is really obscured) expire quickly as the grunts move forward a block. Our snipers are winding up with a slightly vague position on the battlefield, drilling mooks one at a time, which is a bit anticlimactic.
One option is just to treat them like soldiers with specialized rifles, able to make hyper-accurate shots, but otherwise running along with the other guys.
The better realization seems to be that we need to mix up the time scales. Break up the action into scenes (we tend to play moment by moment, moving block by block) so that the sniper has a chance to do some forays, get into trouble, report back, etc.
We have a different but similar feeling problem with medics. I really think that medics need wounded PCs to work on. For a few sessions, Stephen (GM) was doing more detailed tracking of our NPC platoon members, and they started becoming a sort of 'unit hit points'. Tim's medic was busy fixing red-shirted ensigns, but this isn't especially dramatic.
I wonder if the lethality is just .. low? Of five regular players, we've had two Go Home, and a third (my guy) is nearly ready to do so, and no fatalities yet.
My gut tells me that Go Home should be less common than death.
11
The Regiment / 2.1 meets 2.5 Feedback
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:55:36 AM »
We played our seventh session tonight of our WWII game, run by Stephen. We tried to layer in some of the changes from 2.5 (though obviously we still have the 2.1 playbooks for WWII). Here's some stuff that happened and some observations.
A. Assaults, Attacks, Covering Fire
The combined covering fire and assault move seems problematic, though in a couple of ways that surprised me.
1. The first came up twice - I was laying down covering fire with my BAR to aid various assaults, and a player (and then the GM) felt it was appropriate to use the Aid mechanic.
This floored me, and seemed like a sort of mechanics usability problem (as covering fire is somewhat buried). In hindsight, I can see how they got there - covering fire, mechanically, is basically a specialized Aid move (the +1 forward), but which (unlike generic Aid) lets you inflict harm and use weapon tags.
2. The other thing happened twice - once when my soldier was laying down MG fire at ambushing riflemen in windows, and later when our sniper player was shooting into another MG nest. The oddness is hard to explain, but it feels a bit like choosing Assault (instead of Attack) puts the cart before the horse:
"Tactical advantage" is rather open, in particular because it seems to include the possibility of the enemy losing ground - moving back under a hail of fire. So it seems that I choose Assault if I want my shooting to have the possibility of making the enemy retreat a bit, or to somehow give my friends an advantage. But it's not obvious to me how I narrate the difference in my actions - either way, I'm just shooting. Then, if we settle on assault, the successful shooter is in the position of being able to decide how the enemies react. (The shooter isn't moving up, so the pick of "seizure of contested territory" implies enemy retreat.)
To put it in BW terms, it feels like I carry out a task, and then, once I've done it, I choose what my intent was.
(I like it when there are clear physical actions that differentiate moves, rather than merely hopes for how it turns out: e.g. move while firing to claim ground, lay out fire wastefully to rattle 'em, careful controlled shots to kill them. At the moment, a clear differentiator seems to be the amount of time you shoot for, which gives rise to the gear spend.)
3. Given how liberal the GM should be with incoming VOF, assaulting a position to claim it without inflicting any actual damage an Attack feels really weird to me.
4. The area fire vs. group thing came up when I used the LMG on the soldiers in the windows. With enemies behind cover, it's a huge advantage if we don't use the "vs. Group" rule, because I can use my area tag to hit them all (potentially taking out the whole bunch if I roll 1W).
B. Rolling VOF against enemies
Tim hates rolling VOF against enemies, he says he doesn't care what happens to them. After play, the group rumbled close to the idea of the GM just adjudicating the effects of weapons during assaults; I'd be sad to see it go that way, I enjoy the gun porn.
In particular, the group seems to have settled on the idea that any VOF against NPCs above Scattered is irrelevant. NPCs have two generic damage pips, and Direct or better fire always does one pip.
But - nevermind! I see now that we missed the line that it takes two Stress to do a pip of damage to an NPC!
Suppression
The rules for the effects and removal of suppressed and pinned seem to have been dropped from 2.5.
Stress
The gang really likes the new stress track. As some of us started injured, we didn't migrate to the new wounding system.
A. Assaults, Attacks, Covering Fire
The combined covering fire and assault move seems problematic, though in a couple of ways that surprised me.
1. The first came up twice - I was laying down covering fire with my BAR to aid various assaults, and a player (and then the GM) felt it was appropriate to use the Aid mechanic.
This floored me, and seemed like a sort of mechanics usability problem (as covering fire is somewhat buried). In hindsight, I can see how they got there - covering fire, mechanically, is basically a specialized Aid move (the +1 forward), but which (unlike generic Aid) lets you inflict harm and use weapon tags.
2. The other thing happened twice - once when my soldier was laying down MG fire at ambushing riflemen in windows, and later when our sniper player was shooting into another MG nest. The oddness is hard to explain, but it feels a bit like choosing Assault (instead of Attack) puts the cart before the horse:
"Tactical advantage" is rather open, in particular because it seems to include the possibility of the enemy losing ground - moving back under a hail of fire. So it seems that I choose Assault if I want my shooting to have the possibility of making the enemy retreat a bit, or to somehow give my friends an advantage. But it's not obvious to me how I narrate the difference in my actions - either way, I'm just shooting. Then, if we settle on assault, the successful shooter is in the position of being able to decide how the enemies react. (The shooter isn't moving up, so the pick of "seizure of contested territory" implies enemy retreat.)
To put it in BW terms, it feels like I carry out a task, and then, once I've done it, I choose what my intent was.
(I like it when there are clear physical actions that differentiate moves, rather than merely hopes for how it turns out: e.g. move while firing to claim ground, lay out fire wastefully to rattle 'em, careful controlled shots to kill them. At the moment, a clear differentiator seems to be the amount of time you shoot for, which gives rise to the gear spend.)
3. Given how liberal the GM should be with incoming VOF, assaulting a position to claim it without inflicting any actual damage an Attack feels really weird to me.
4. The area fire vs. group thing came up when I used the LMG on the soldiers in the windows. With enemies behind cover, it's a huge advantage if we don't use the "vs. Group" rule, because I can use my area tag to hit them all (potentially taking out the whole bunch if I roll 1W).
B. Rolling VOF against enemies
Tim hates rolling VOF against enemies, he says he doesn't care what happens to them. After play, the group rumbled close to the idea of the GM just adjudicating the effects of weapons during assaults; I'd be sad to see it go that way, I enjoy the gun porn.
In particular, the group seems to have settled on the idea that any VOF against NPCs above Scattered is irrelevant. NPCs have two generic damage pips, and Direct or better fire always does one pip.
But - nevermind! I see now that we missed the line that it takes two Stress to do a pip of damage to an NPC!
Suppression
The rules for the effects and removal of suppressed and pinned seem to have been dropped from 2.5.
Stress
The gang really likes the new stress track. As some of us started injured, we didn't migrate to the new wounding system.
12
The Regiment / Re: The Regiment: Colonial Marines
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:44:47 AM »
I realize I'm mourning the separate Assault and Covering Fire moves!
As someone who didn't know about bases of fire and whatnot, the moves felt instructive about how to go about combat. (Ah, I should be providing covering fire with the MG while my teammates assault them.)
This is either an important observation, or I'm not very good with change. :-)
As someone who didn't know about bases of fire and whatnot, the moves felt instructive about how to go about combat. (Ah, I should be providing covering fire with the MG while my teammates assault them.)
This is either an important observation, or I'm not very good with change. :-)
13
The Regiment / Re: The Regiment: Colonial Marines
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:07:39 AM »
As one last comment on individual vs. group, I wonder about a connection to whether the assault costs gear.
In our first WWII game, I was soldier with a BAR. The first few beats of combat were fairly zoomed in: we were shooting at individuals (snipers and so forth). Because both Assault and Covering Fire use gear inherently, I burned through 4 gear against two enemy soldiers, which seemed like a heck of a lot. (Maybe it's not!)
At any rate, it occurs to me that perhaps the 1-gear cost of an Assault is part of the "vs. Group" mode. (So if you just assault against a one-man position, or if the GM is resolving your squad's action as a couple of individual one-on-one assaults, it doesn't cost gear unless you bring in autofire, etc. If you assault a group of individuals in 'Vs. Group' mode, that's when you pay 1-gear, appropriate for the longer timeframe being represented.)
In our first WWII game, I was soldier with a BAR. The first few beats of combat were fairly zoomed in: we were shooting at individuals (snipers and so forth). Because both Assault and Covering Fire use gear inherently, I burned through 4 gear against two enemy soldiers, which seemed like a heck of a lot. (Maybe it's not!)
At any rate, it occurs to me that perhaps the 1-gear cost of an Assault is part of the "vs. Group" mode. (So if you just assault against a one-man position, or if the GM is resolving your squad's action as a couple of individual one-on-one assaults, it doesn't cost gear unless you bring in autofire, etc. If you assault a group of individuals in 'Vs. Group' mode, that's when you pay 1-gear, appropriate for the longer timeframe being represented.)
14
The Regiment / Re: The Regiment: Colonial Marines
« on: February 12, 2013, 10:11:19 AM »
I realized a bit later that if the primary shooter is using an area or messy weapon, it makes sense for them not to use the "vs. Group" rule, and just hit everyone as individuals.
15
The Regiment / Re: The Regiment: Colonial Marines
« on: February 11, 2013, 08:55:01 PM »
Ah yes, thanks John. Of course, head hits aren't too likely with all that cover.
4. That's cool. The sense I get is that with the "vs. Group" rule, you're zooming out a bit and imagining the effects of a short battle.
Does this have a peculiar interaction with the 'area' and 'messy' weapon tags?
Autofire and spray seem simple enough - you just urge the shooter to use the +VOF or +1d mode of the tag. High rate of fire evens up force parity, effectively.
Area and messy, however, are expressly about hitting multiple people in the same timeframe/gear use that other weapons hit one. So when we zoom out, it seems we're obscuring a valuable effect of the weapon.
For single shot messy weapons (like grenades, or messy reload like bazookas) I'd be inclined to think the 'messy' tag has no effect: the messiness is the pretext that lets you fight a squad to begin with. (Slow or single-use weapons without an area effect of any kind, like a hurled rock, strike me as inappropriate for attacking a squad with, and the GM would have framed the move differently.)
Repeating messy or area weapons, though, seem to get short shrift. I'm thinking weapons like the incinerator (not merely autofire, but messy to boot), Flamethrower and HMG.
(I realize I'm bombarding you with mechanical nitpicking, this is just my thought process as I read the rules.)
What occurs to me is that for "vs Group" attacks, 'messy', 'area' are like a free VOF increase, while 'expend' and 'reload' are a VOF decrease (since they can't shoot as often).
4. That's cool. The sense I get is that with the "vs. Group" rule, you're zooming out a bit and imagining the effects of a short battle.
Does this have a peculiar interaction with the 'area' and 'messy' weapon tags?
Autofire and spray seem simple enough - you just urge the shooter to use the +VOF or +1d mode of the tag. High rate of fire evens up force parity, effectively.
Area and messy, however, are expressly about hitting multiple people in the same timeframe/gear use that other weapons hit one. So when we zoom out, it seems we're obscuring a valuable effect of the weapon.
For single shot messy weapons (like grenades, or messy reload like bazookas) I'd be inclined to think the 'messy' tag has no effect: the messiness is the pretext that lets you fight a squad to begin with. (Slow or single-use weapons without an area effect of any kind, like a hurled rock, strike me as inappropriate for attacking a squad with, and the GM would have framed the move differently.)
Repeating messy or area weapons, though, seem to get short shrift. I'm thinking weapons like the incinerator (not merely autofire, but messy to boot), Flamethrower and HMG.
(I realize I'm bombarding you with mechanical nitpicking, this is just my thought process as I read the rules.)
What occurs to me is that for "vs Group" attacks, 'messy', 'area' are like a free VOF increase, while 'expend' and 'reload' are a VOF decrease (since they can't shoot as often).