Unnumbered - Draft 2

[xiombarg]

Okay, I've corrected typos, added color and pictures in an attempt to make the text prettier and easier to read (as well as to invoke a mood), and I've added a lot of new rules concepts. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

http://www.io.com/~xiombarg/unnumbered

Comments on any aspect of the game, from the rules to its name to the layout, are welcome. Playesters get a big fat kiss... or not, depending on their preference. ;-)

[hive]

Rules- More examples or a short session of gameplay.
Layout- Confine the text to table of 70% of page, give the sections section headers with a either bold text/textbox/different color. Maybe break away from the black/white color scheme (to avert from ethics being read in the color choice). Try using a neutral color like a gray with either off white or muted red text.
Aesthetics- Give a short blurb under each pic like a caption.
Name-Unsung:A Role-Playing Game of Ethics on the Battlefield


I enjoy the overall theme of it as a player & designer but as a GM I would be afraid of guilt-tripping players into being heroes. Maybe some rules between 'taking orders' and 'the needs of the many' should be accounted for? Possibly even adding in some military rank tables as well as military ops listings? You know,  something to help springboard the GM's initial run at it.

-
h
www.internalist.com

[Victor Gijsbers]

geurilla

-> guerilla

For example, only a character with the Savvy Descriptor of "went to medical school" should be allowed to even attempt surgery.

Why? Let him attempt it, give him a -15 penalty, and if he rolls a failure he'll only make things worse. Much more fun than the GM telling the player 'you're not allowed to do that'.

Confederate solider

Better than the 'Conferate solider' it was in the last draft, but I still think it should be 'Confederate soldier'. :)

If the above equation makes no sense, ignore it and rely entirely on the paragraphs above it.

Hehe, thanks. ;)

Note that this system means that it is easier for a chararacter with high Responsibility to gain more Responsibility through heroic actions, and hard for a character with low Responsibility to do the same -- with a highly unstable middle. This means a downward spiral is tough to climb out of, and the good stay good. If this bothers the group, there is a simple fix: when an action would cause the character a potential gain in Responsibility, the character's Responsibility goes up by 1 if he fails the Responsibility check, and doesn't change if the check succeeds. This roll cannot be automatically failed using the rule on failing Responsibility checks below; this is the only exception to that rule. The assumption behind this reversal is the good can be expected to act good and so don't get much out of it, but one good action by a bad man counts for a lot. Just be clear on which method is going to be used before play starts.

Great improvement.

I'm being fired on my the Veit Kong

my -> by, and Veit -> Viet

After the combat, the GM rules the mission is successful, as the total modifiers acquired by the PCs are positive

They'll _always_ be positive or zero, in your example. Even if the GM has 'A, B, C, D' and the players have 'D, C, B, A', the total modifier is 0. Also, this situation in exactly equivalent to the GM having 'D, C, B, A' and the players having 'A, B, C, D' - even though this should not be the case.

I'd fix it in the following way. The GM and the players both think up an order. The first place in the order is worth a +4 bonus, the second one a +2 bonus, the third is neutral, the fourth a -2 penalty. (I'm increasing the numbers to give it more impact, you could change it back.) So, if the players have 'A, B, C, D', they get +4 on A, +2 on B, 0 on C and -2 on D. Or do they? This is were the GM comes in. What he places first has a maximum bonus of +4, what he places second has a maximum bonus of +2, and the other two have a maximum bonus of 0. So, suppose he has 'C, A, D, B'. This means that C has a maximum bonus of +4, A of +2, and D and B can't get above 0. Placing these restrictions on the player's choices, we see that the bonus for A drops from +4 to +2, and the bonus on B drops to 0. Thus the bonusses they get are: A +2, B +0, C +0, D -2. If they'd chosen the exact same order as the GM, the total bonus could have been +4. It is possible to get a total bonus of -2.

In this way, you are punished on Q if you underestimate it's importance, and you get no bonus on R if you overestimate it's importance. On the other hand, you are not punished for overestimating something, which is much more logical than your system, imho.

[xiombarg]

Okay, I'm going to reply to everyone's posts all at once here...

Rules- More examples or a short session of gameplay.

Yeah, that's the next big step. I need to watch some more war movies so I can get a good set of examples.

Layout- Confine the text to table of 70% of page, give the sections section headers with a either bold text/textbox/different color. Maybe break away from the black/white color scheme (to avert from ethics being read in the color choice). Try using a neutral color like a gray with either off white or muted red text.

I assume by 70% of page you mean you don't like the fact the text runs from one side of the screen to the other? Yeah, I've been considering fixing that for readability. As for the colors, every time I used grey in one of my games Zak complained he couldn't read it... the color scheme was less a moral choice as a readability one.

Aesthetics- Give a short blurb under each pic like a caption.

I'm considering setting it up so when you point at a picture a caption pops up.

Name-Unsung:A Role-Playing Game of Ethics on the Battlefield

Yes! This is exactly what I was looking for. My problem with "Unnumbered" was it kinda implied a numberless system to me, which it ain't. I've changed the name.

I enjoy the overall theme of it as a player & designer but as a GM I would be afraid of guilt-tripping players into being heroes. Maybe some rules between 'taking orders' and 'the needs of the many' should be accounted for? Possibly even adding in some military rank tables as well as military ops listings? You know,  something to help springboard the GM's initial run at it.

Hmmmm, as far as military stuff goes, I'd rather point people at resources. How do you think the "taking orders" thing would work, mechanically speaking?

After the combat, the GM rules the mission is successful, as the total modifiers acquired by the PCs are positive

They'll _always_ be positive or zero, in your example. Even if the GM has 'A, B, C, D' and the players have 'D, C, B, A', the total modifier is 0. Also, this situation in exactly equivalent to the GM having 'D, C, B, A' and the players having 'A, B, C, D' - even though this should not be the case.

Ooops. I originally didn't write the mission system, and your problem is because I got it wrong. I've fixed it -- two off should get you a -1, three off should get you a -2, and so on, with no "0" result possible -- it's always a penalty or a bonus. You can see the original discussion on the Mission system here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1687

I will note, however, that even under my mistaken version of it, the problem you refer to is only a problem when there are four factors -- and there can be more than four. People seem to forget that with this system; I think I'll add a note about that.

As for what "should" be the case, I don't have any problem with inverse situations being equivalent.

I think I will add your version as an optional rule, however. (In fact, I just did... let me know what you think.)

[hive]

How do you think the "taking orders" thing would work, mechanically speaking?

Well you illustrate the moral compass to some degree with Responsibility vs. Instinct but what about Duty (taking orders)? Instead of having just two sides of the coin between humanity and barbarism, maybe include something about being in sync with other players' moral compasses.



-
h
www.internalist.com

[Victor Gijsbers]

I think I will add your version as an optional rule, however. (In fact, I just did... let me know what you think.)

Cool - and you got it exactly right.

"Typo Hawk"... and yet another nickname to add to my ever-growing list. ;)