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.


Messages - countercheck

Pages: [1]
1
The Regiment / Re: 2.1 meets 2.5 Feedback
« on: March 17, 2013, 01:38:51 AM »
A bit more feedback from our most recent session:

1. We're still playing WWII, but it doesn't feel very WWII.  Individually, we feel quite powerful, and some of the moves, especially for the officer, don't seem to make a lot of sense unless we're playing a more contemporary setting. Particularly the officer's ability to call for fire.  The battles end up feeling more like a SEAL team fighting the NVA, or the SAS in the Falklands.  Our officer just managed to go home, so we're going to try playing without an officer to see if it gets grittier.  

2. The horror of war doesn't seem to be explicitly supported by the mechanics.  I think we could do more with what we have - I had a horrific moment where my officer, after calling down smoke on some machinegun nests in bocage was forced to lead the unit in a headlong assault through the smoke to avoid a mortar bombardment, and in the smoke accidentally ended up shooting one of his own men.  That was horrible.  

But the mechanics don't suggest that the soldiers accumulate physical and psychic scars, which makes it really easy to play Rambo or Inglorious Basterds.  At our table, we might not be applying incidental fire as rigorously as we might... But with Grit and Tough, our Soldier managed to prove utterly immune to enemy fire.

And it's up to the players to make the choice of how the character reacts to warfare.  It's entirely possible to go stress and wound critical, and then recover and not have changed.  And while that's not a bad thing necessarily, I feel like the game seems to be about trying to live long enough to get home, and what prices must be paid to accomplish that, and I could use more guidance, myself.

If it is about the costs of war, it might be neat to see that reflected on the sheet.  We were talking about how it would be really cool to be able to tell the stories of our battered veterans after they come back to 'the world', and to have those stories supported by the game.  Maybe carry the characters over into a heist game, a la original Ocean's 11.  Even something as simple as a Fiasco aftermath chart.

When you go home, roll + times you went critical over the campaign.  On a 10+, pick 3.  On a 7-9, pick 2.  On a 6-, you are unscarred.  Why?
-You suffer from substance abuse
-You become an adrenaline junkie
-You're in and out of prison
-You're physically maimed

I think the letters home are a good start at dealing with that.  But Tim made a neat point that tying XP to mission objectives makes it feel wargamey.


3. One of the most valuable things I think is the battleplan tool.  I think it might also be valuable to include some heuristics so players who don't know much about combat have a sort of best practices list of doctrines that they can refer to.  But that might be a bit more than can be asked of such a tight, short game.

2
The Regiment / Re: 2.1 meets 2.5 Feedback
« on: March 17, 2013, 12:34:23 AM »
Edit:  Rethinking what I was saying.

3
The Regiment / Re: The Regiment: Colonial Marines
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:14:37 PM »
Version 2.5 is up now:

http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-regiment-colonial-marines-25.html

I love all the changes.  On Thursday, we discussed more specific wounds, tightening the attack moves, and a bunch of other stuff, and lo, much of it has happened!  Can't wait to give it a shot!

4
The Regiment / Re: Neat way of handling artillery
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:27:09 PM »
Yes. What made it cool was the randomness of what was happening.  Neither the GM nor players knew where that shell would hit.  And that would give us a chance to make a move to react (usually Hit The Deck), or, if it was a near miss, some incidental fire.  So whenever the shells landed on a building we weren't in, we all breathed a sigh of relief (even though it wouldn't likely be lethal.  And when the nebelwerfer landed in the aid station, and killed all the named NPC soldiers we'd sent there to wait for real medical attention... that was tragic. 

Conversely, when our artillery started shooting back at the company scale open field assault the Germans tried, we were cheering and booing our gunners as they alternately laid down a really effective stonk, and sometimes dropped shells dangerously close.

Again, it's a neat way to handle it.  I wouldn't do it every time, but it felt right this time.  It seems like it would be best for really impersonal things, like long range indirect artillery fire or carpet bombing, and might not work so well for, say, dive bombers or CAS, or direct artillery fire.

5
The Regiment / Neat way of handling artillery
« on: January 20, 2013, 08:59:19 AM »
In our game two weeks ago (with Fuseboy and a few others) we came up with an interesting way of dealing with artillery, based on a DW AP I read, where a town was detailed, and then flame markers scattered over it.

Since in The Regiment, you're always drawing maps, when the German howitzers and nebelwerfers started ranging in on us, our GM started tossing poker chips onto the map.  Anything that one landed on was hit.  We were holed up in a pretty little French town, and watching the shells land and tear the shit out of all the beautiful cottages and houses we had cleared was... compelling. 

It's not right for every situation, but it worked for us. 

Especially when they scored a direct hit on the house we had set up as an aid centre for our NPC wounded.

6
Dungeon World / Re: Improved combat moves
« on: December 05, 2012, 03:29:24 PM »
Then it seems our design goals are polar opposite =)
I donno.  I think we're both trying to come up with a way to codify Hack and Slash's narrative effects.  But we're branching out from each other, yes.

I WOULD try to trim down the number of effects though.  Find ones that are similar, and make the wording the same.  Possibly tie some of the effects to specific weapons or playbook moves.  Both "- knock down one opponent and deal harm to another" and
"- opponent deals harm to his ally, spreading confusion; your party gets +1 next round"

are odd and powerful, and seem like they might be things that are earned.

7
Dungeon World / Re: Improved combat moves
« on: December 05, 2012, 02:48:23 PM »
I'm really wary of a move with more than four options to choose during play, that's just way too many. You can roll a lot of those together and make it way easier to parse.

In fact you couldn't just have one option replace almost all of those: "...you gain an advantage or put them in a worse condition." That one statement covers literally everything from grappling, driving them back, knocking them over, whatever. I'd rather have my players describing their actions and goals, instead of picking specific choices from a long list. Why do we need each option explicitly listed?


Good call

Here's a new version

When you engage in combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, do 1 harm, or do 2 harm and receive 1 harm.  On a 7-9, do one harm and receive 1 harm.  On a miss, receive harm.  The harm effects, as with all moves, must follow from the fiction.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established, divided evenly between targets as appropriate  If chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6.
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position or improve your own position.
Make a special monster, GM, or playbook move

8
Dungeon World / Re: Improved combat moves
« on: December 05, 2012, 02:47:28 PM »
What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

I guess that's doable, but I much prefer the different methods of fighting feeling different as well. I haven't written up grapple yet, but... let's say in your version, I choose to "take a dominating position" and I'm also deciding that this position is grapple, with my character having a good grip. Now, I'm in a clinch with my opponent, but the outlook of the combat hasn't really changed, and the results of grappling are the exact same as the results of normal fighting.
Wheras, I'd rather let the options be the same across the board, but permit the activation of those through the fiction to differ.  And things WOULD have changed.  If you're in a clinch, new moves might trigger, and certainly your opponent's axe won't work any-more.  New narrative successes and failures become available.  Distilling the options down to the minimum number that must be differentiated seems to me to be a good call.  As I see it, there are three resources we're interacting with, fictional positioning, HP, and equipment.  So one option for each seems reasonable, no?


I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.

Who said that dealing harm is (or should be) handled with a single blow fiction-wise?

I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.

My rules model it just fine. Last two 10+ results achieve it, while making sure the situation doesn't remain static. Your rules don't model it... as on 10+ you also need to damage him or take away his equipment, or discard your 2nd pick. And on 7-9 the GM can either damage you or disarm you in return, or nullify the progress by picking a dominating position for the opponent in return.

And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

My rules deal with up to two targets, and that's pretty generous swashbuckling spirit already. Any more of that, and I think suspension of disbelief would suffer... but if that's what you like, go for it =)

Those comments were actually directed at default Hack and Slash, not your Hack and Slash hack =)  I agree your modifications handle those situations.

9
Dungeon World / Re: Improved combat moves
« on: December 04, 2012, 08:26:28 PM »
What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

When you Engage in Combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, you inflict a harm effect without receiving it, or inflict 2 and receive 1.  On a 7-9, you and GM each choose a harm effect to inflict.  On a miss, you receive without giving.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established to a single target (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6).
Divide damage evenly between multiple targets (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6)..
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position.
Take a dominating position.

Playbook specific moves could modify these options, possibly under certain conditions.  Spend 1 ammo to gain 1 additional harm effect.  When you select Deal Damage multiple times, add 1d8 instead of 1d6.  If your Signature Weapon would be taken away, you may choose to suffer Damage rather than lose it.  Etc.

Narratively, these options are of course restricted.  If an archer is shooting at a charging goblin and rolls a 7-9, it's not appropriate for the goblin to deal damage, or take away the archer's bow.  It is appropriate for the archer to lose ammo, or be put in a worse position by having a screaming goblin appear in his face, or for the goblin to reach some high ground where he can roll rocks down on the archer's head.  If he were exchanging fire with a marksman, then Damage certainly would be on the table and maybe losing his weapon too.

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.  I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.  And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

10
The Regiment / Re: Fog of War
« on: November 23, 2012, 02:13:42 PM »
I was thinking about the Assess move, and it occurred to me that the fog of war of th tactical environment was particularly dense in the 20th century.  In previous eras, you could stand in your formation and look around the battlefield.  But in WWII, firepower was so deadly that to stand up and have a gander puts you at serious risk of being brained by a sniper, or riddled by MG bullets.

Yeah, it was bad, but also remember, in previous periods, communication was really difficult, and multilingual armies were common.  So while the general on the hill could see the whole battle, it was difficult for him to affect it.  Also, terrain still hid units, firearms belched smoke that obscured the battlefield, couriers were intercepted and shot.  And night!  The (possibly apocryphal) Battle of Karánsebes (possibly) occurred when an Austrian army ran into itself at night (schnapps was involved) and routed itself.

11
The Regiment / Re: 2.1 Comments/questions
« on: November 23, 2012, 01:54:37 PM »
- What does this line mean: "Apply both stress and wounds inflicted
to the strength damage track (so there’s no need to roll damage when
NPCs take direct fire, unless you need the added detail)."

I get that if you do 2S, W to an NPC unit, it just takes '3 damage'.  But why don't you need to roll?  (Is this because the GM is just converting the narrative in to damage points?)

You  don't need to roll because at the Direct Fire level, whatever you roll does 1S or 1W, so rather than rolling, you can just mark off a number of circles equal to the number of dice you WOULD have rolled

12
Dungeon World / Re: Ask questions - Cues, tips and tools
« on: June 23, 2012, 07:48:13 AM »
I actually had a question about this re: Spout Lore.  Rather than having the GM generate some interesting and or useful titbit, can you treat Spout Lore as a BW -wise, where the player declares a fact about the world and then you roll to see if its true?  Can the GM's interesting fact be spurred on by a question the players have asked?

Pages: [1]