First Session

  • 6 Replies
  • 4900 Views
First Session
« on: March 14, 2012, 08:12:09 AM »
Three of us tried out The Regiment last night. To answer the question posed on the Mighty Atom website "Should you try this out?", we ticked two and a half of the three boxes. We had never played Apocalypse World and didn't know it well, however all of us had played Monster of the Week and two of us had played Dungeon World. We were fans of war movies and we were definitely up for playtesting a game from bare-bones components.
 
The game was enjoyed by all and the objective was achieved.
 
Feedback:
 
We played with a default platoon, the Officer moved between teams, the Sergeant and the Medic were in one team, the Soldier was in another team and the third team was NPCs only. Most of the time we were conducting PC team on NPC team firefights rather than PC on NPC, we were unsure if we should have been using the gang rules from AW or the Force Parity table or some sort of combination of the two (which was what we mostly did). We had the PC make the appropriate roll which sometimes seemed odd (the Medic making an attack the enemy move, when there's an NPC Sgt in the squad).
 
How is gear treated with regard to NPCs? We played it that whenever a team made a move requiring gear, a PC in the team had to pay the cost.
 
When a make a close assault roll is failed we figured that either a second make a close assault move had to be made or act despite danger, depending on the hard move given by the GM on the first fail. Harm was the hard move given initially, and it was decided that the players pressed the attack and made a second close combat roll which then routed the enemy. Was this done correctly?
 
When giving orders (from PCs to NPCs) they were generally carried out as if it was "standard infantry training". If it was counter to the "survival instincts" of the NPC then the PC would have to impose their will, there is a fine line between the two...
 
I really enjoyed the XP rules, as the Sergeant managed to gain an advance due to really poor rolls and taking damage, takes the sting out of poor dice rolls :)
 

Re: First Session
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2012, 10:18:42 PM »
Murph, thanks for checking out our game!

Gangs – In the Regiment, force parity rules replace the gang rules from Apocalypse World. It’s not really explained in the play test kit what exactly overwhelmed or onslaught means; but, for now let the subjective descriptors serve as a guide.

While the PCs may make moves that affect or involve NPCs, the PCs don’t actually make rolls on their behalf of NPCs. So, unlike AW, you don’t roll for your gang. The squad or team are influenced by the PC’s actions, particularly if a PC is in charge; but, in the Regiment, what the NPC soldiers do and how they perform are entirely in the hands of the GM.

NPCs and gear – in the fiction, the NPCs are clearly carrying their own equipment. In game mechanics terms, the “gear” they carry isn’t tracked, that’s a level of detail we don’t want the GM to have to track or think about. So, the GM decides if the NPCs have adequate gear to do what they ought to be doing. The GM can use the unit reserve, in particular, as a guide to gauging the gear state of NPCs. Also, move successes or failures. In general, the NPCs are assumed to have what they need to get the job done unless the GM decides it fits better with the fiction to use surplus or shortage as a thing.

Repeating moves – I think it’s contextual whether repeat moves are the right approach. So, no hard and fast guidance there. In making any move, there has to be a means or opportunity in the fiction to do so. In the Regiment, harm can be a hard move; but, it’s also a fact of the circumstances, so you didn’t have to “spend your hard move” to deal harm. In fact, the GM makes whatever hard moves are appropriate. That said, the question should be, what was the tactical significance of the PC’s failure to make the close assault? Is their team shot to pieces (call for the when you see a fellow soldier go down in battle move)? Do the enemy secure their position and suppress the PCs (give them a condition – make them endure fire, push for rally)? Do the enemy press their advantage and attempt to overwhelm the PCs (hold fast under fire)? What the enemy do and how the PCs attempt to make the move should determine whether or not it makes sense to follow up one failed move with the same move.

Standard training – You have the right perspective. There is a fine line; but, there’s an art to storytelling ;)

Re: First Session
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2012, 06:31:35 PM »
Thanks for the feedback. Two of us are going to have another session on Tuesday, we'll be sure to take everything onboard.

Re: First Session
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2012, 08:11:40 PM »
Thanks for playtesting! I'll have a set of questions posted soon, but any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Second Session
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2012, 05:57:27 PM »
Played a second session, this time I was GMing, comments below:

While the PCs may make moves that affect or involve NPCs, the PCs don’t actually make rolls on their behalf of NPCs. So, unlike AW, you don’t roll for your gang. The squad or team are influenced by the PC’s actions, particularly if a PC is in charge; but, in the Regiment, what the NPC soldiers do and how they perform are entirely in the hands of the GM.

I really don't like this, it puts too much on-the-spur decision-making in the hands of the GM "shall I destroy the player NPC squad or not... should I kill 1 or should I kill 2..." Having the players make the rolls (to me) is far better. I believe a player should always make roll+profile when a player NPC team/squad makes a move. Thoughts?

There appears to be no Act Under Pressure type move, i.e. doing something in a stressful environment, but not under fire.

The Commando move Cold Operator could be read two ways. You do not have to Push Yourself when: (1) wounded and killing at close quarters, or (2) simply killing at close quarters. If (2) then the fact that everyone usually needs to Push Themselves to kill at close quarters should be added to the general Push Yourself description.

Should Suppressed (the Condition) result in reducing a Volume of Fire level (e.g. Direct to Incidental) rather than a -1 on the die roll? This would mean two suppressions would stop the suppressed unit from firing (not unreasonable)?

Should Sniper perhaps be called Scout, with his choice of moves determining what role he ends up taking?

Do you want Typo/Grammar/etc reports?

Re: First Session
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2012, 03:21:00 AM »
Rolling on behalf of the NPC squad is fine. Roll+profile is probably a good way to do it. You can also roll damage against the NPC squadies if you don't want to just say what happens to them.

Use act under fire to act under pressure. Just don't pick any options that don't make sense.

Being suppressed does reduce your volume of fire. See p. 13 under Conditions.

Push yourself requires a judgment call. Do you have to push yourself to do up close killing? Depends on the person and the situation. But the Commando never needs to.

Thanks for the questions! It's helpful to see where our assumptions are.

Re: First Session
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2012, 08:12:15 PM »
That's exactly how I played "Acting Under Pressure", maybe a slight tweak to the name and or description?

It sounds like how we wanted suppression to work is how you intended it, but not how we read it! :)

Thanks for a great hack, planning my "inspired by Black Hawk Down" scenario next.