FIRST POST! - Yet another Homebrew Mecha RPG, but this one's tactical for once

[Silicon God]

Hello,

I've been posting on a number of tabletop/RPG sites a while, trying to get feedback on my creation.

So, what's it? Its a tactical RPG. (while I know that sort of thing isn't really popular with indie creators, rules lite being en vogue)

I'd describe it as a blend of the character advancement/leadership aspects of Mordheim/Necromunda, some mechanics of Warmachine, Lord of the Rings, and the universe and flavor of Front Mission and Xenogears.

What my objectives were was to make a mecha RPG that doesn't get bogged down in minutiae like Mekton, but instead concentrates on drama, technology and stuff blowing up.

I'd appreciate honest criticism.

Without further ado, here's the link...

http://www.mediafire.com/file/zqnkw2j05dm/G-ops-%20starter%20rules%20v0.6b.rtf

[Silicon God]

A short description:

Tactical RPG like a console game, emphasis on drama, tactical action, shtuff blowing up and weapon and part swapping.

G - ops: Elegy of the Battlefield is a cinematic tabletop tactical skirmish RPG featuring battling mecha heavily inspired by a variety of sources, among them the video games Armored Core, Xenogears and Front Mission and shows like Armored Trooper Votoms, Macross and Mobile Suit Gundam.

Players lead their small squad of pilots through missions, cooperating against a GM or against each other. Characters gain experience through combat and role playing objectives, enabling them to gain additional skills and resources in order to improve your squad. The system allows for high level of freedom in customizing pilots and their respective machines in order to suit one's preferred style of play.

Units are composed of the chosen combatants, represented by pilots and their personal machines drawn from your pool of resources. Pilots and machines possess characteristics and skills which govern how well they fight. These units, taken altogether and deployed onto the battlefield are grouped into a squad. Squads are composed of a commanding officer (CO) and the soldiers under his command.

The CO unit is the core of the squad on the battlefield, a unique pilot character whom the player creates himself. Beneath him are the members of the squad, minor individuals who may develop over the course of the campaign and become full-fledged characters in their own right. Leading your squad to victory in the battlefield not only brings valuable experience and resources to your struggling squad allowing access to better skills, upgraded machines and deadlier weapons but also affects the greater storyline of the chosen campaign.

[Noclue]

I'm not sure what help you're looking for from the thread. Do you have any particular questions you want answered, or are you just looking for general criticism? I think you will get the best responses from asking for feedback about specific issues you are struggling with.

To me the game looks like it is ready for playtesting and is really past the First Thoughts stage. If so, you should be playtesting it.

[contracycle]

Okay. First thing is, this is not really an RPG; it is the core of a combat system of an RPG.  I think it has promise, and pretty much meets your stated goals.  But to be an RPG you need to add a lot of stuff, like some kind of mission system and so forth.  At the moment this is really just a tactical subsystem.

A point where this becomes striking is the retreat rule, forcing a machine to fall back due to a failed roll.  Its not impossible to have such things, but you do not seem to have even considered how an individual player will react to being forced to retreat due to purely mechanical outcomes.  You also have no dicussion of characters out of combat, character development etc.  All this latter stuff can be added but the retreat thing needs consideration; fine an logical from a wargame perspective in which the character is not a representation of an an individual player, but problematic where it is meant to be.

There is a minor error in your combat example; you use it to show the Reload rule in operation, but ommit any mention of this decision.  You also say that reloading carries with it the risk of running out of ammo, but I could not see where this was discussed.  But I like this rule in principle.

You say that players go through mission objectives, and can improive squads and so forth, but none of this is mentioned in this document.  I think the skirmnish rules you have look, as Noclue says, test-ready, but to the real interest of this as an RPG will lie in the squad and character management systems, if there actually are to be any.

[Silicon God]

HA!

A reply, I am pleased!

What I'm looking for is generally, comments and critiques on how it works, and maybe for people to point out logical inconsistencies I might have missed.

Putting together advancement/reward systems are what I'm working through right now, if only to make a preliminary version/mini-campaign that's ready for playtesting. About the retreat rule, I have to ask, why would it be problematic to simulate fear? On the other hand it would be a simple affair to make PCs extra resilient to morale issues.

Reloads.... I'll be checking out and rereading that part. Thanks for mentioning it. As it is, the current intentions of the reloads mechanic are A. risk-and-reward mechanic for additional player options, making combat a bit less "swingy" and B. to balance certain weapons that might become unbalanced when taken in large numbers.

==============================================================
Well then, for now I'll leave with a post about the three first featured factions:

Grunwald Republic

Capital: Neue Koln

Grunwald is a verdant country composed of rolling hills, high mountains and vast forests which gave it its current moniker.

The country of Grunwald is highly rural, with several clusterings of industry focused in the cities. Alongside this, Grunwald has a proud military tradition, being descendants of the security crew of Persephone.

Military service is expected from Grunwalder families, sending at least one son or daughter for a full tenure in the military is highly suggested by the government. In exchange, the Republic takes good care of its citizens; food and other necessities, grown by the rural communes and farms is subsidized and paid for for families of military personnel.

Citizens of the Republic sacrifice some personal freedoms for security. While not quite totalitarian, the militaristic nature of Grunwald dictates that a subordinate should follow orders from superiors, a line of thought that influences every facet of Grunwalder culture.

Democratic States of Astraea

Capital: Nortropolis

The Democratic States of Astraea are composed of the mainland and a collective of islands dotting the northern coasts of Melarion, largest continent of Proserpina. Directly to the south, over the Essenia desert lies the Grunwald Republic. Southeast, the Principality of Solus Crux. Astraea is a land of opposites, with snowy peaks to the north and burning deserts to the south. Most of the nation is composed of flat scrub and rough ground, with the occasional lake and forest area.

In stark contrast to the spartan nature of Grunwald, Astraea is a highly freethinking nation. The inherent dynamism of Astraeans is apparent in their rapid and unstoppable thirst for knowledge and technology. Founded by a group of pioneers of American and Japanese descent, Astraea, goddess of progress, rebirth and renewal was chosen as the symbol of the new nation taking the reigns from Columbia of freedom.

Astraea sees itself as a defender of the human desire for personal freedom and scientific progress. Life in Astraea is fast-paced and commercialized, much like 21st century human civilization under capitalism. There are few peoples in Proserpina who can boast of as many personal freedoms as Astraeans, however this comes at a cost.

The Astraean government is highly influenced by the several megacorporations that stand above Astraean life, among them Astraea United Aerospace, Universal Resource Management, and Morimoto Industries. This leads to various anomalies within Astraean governmental structure and sometimes results in times of turmoil. In short, the corporations control Astraea.


The Principality of Solus Crux

Capital: Corona

The isolationist Principality of Solus Crux is a loose assemblage of city states, each with its own duke. Controlled by twelve noble families, with an elected Prince, Solus Crux exists as a veritable theocracy. Above the twelve noble families exists the Church of the One Cross, headed by a Council of Elders. No one outside of the high tiers of the families have ever seen the Elders, though their words are passed down every day through designated messengers.

Outside of the theocracy, Solus Crux exists as something akin to a medieval state - the twelve families all control pieces of land and are expected to provide taxes to the Church. The twelve commonly war against each other in minor skirmishes over land and resources, but are duty-bound to defend the nation.

Say what you will about their system of government or religion, but amongst the warriors on Proserpina there can be none more honorable or trustworthy than the Solites. They may bicker one another with family rivalries, but in battle every Knight of Solus is a valiant warrior who seeks to bring honor and glory to the nation.

[MacLeod]

The following are my minor points, suggestions, observations, complaints, blah, blah, etc...

~ You have 3 types of terrain, none of which represent "Clear Terrain", 1 MU/square requirement.

~ You mention LOS in the document before explaining what the acronym spells out.

~ A section detailing all of APs' uses would be neat. Obviously not to replace the current AP explanation placings, just a nice spot for a general referral.

~ Charging rules before the normal movement rules? Why?

~ Would it be easier to just to say apply a -1 ATK for every full 6 MUs a target is away from the attacker?

~ I think the penalty for firing outside of the LOS should be removed. I'm pretty sure that is covered by the range penalties anyways, yeah? Less modifiers equals quicker play.

~ Seems like the Defend rule, by the nature of its name, should increase Defense as opposed to Armor. This would also allow the Shield bonus to make more sense. Overall I think this would make the attack phase flow smoother as well. At this point you give the defender three opportunities to avoid damage which to me seems to be an excess. I understand that many of these things require AP but still... a game about hitting is far more entertaining than a game about missing.

~ Damage Table... how about taking a point off of Disabling Hit and adding it to Machine Damaged? (5 ~ 8 / 9 ~10 / 11 ~ 12). Disabling Hit seems pretty massive, ya know? Though I guess the probability curve already aims things towards Machine Damaged... ... ...

~ I like the idea of alternating attack actions. Then again, this may be the norm for wargames, I wouldn't know since I've never been involved in such gaming (though it sounds fun).

~ Avoid repeating rules and tables in the example.

All of that said, it sounds like a really good start to me. =)

[Silicon God]

~ You have 3 types of terrain, none of which represent "Clear Terrain", 1 MU/square requirement.

~ You mention LOS in the document before explaining what the acronym spells out.

Noted. Should have proofread better.

~ A section detailing all of APs' uses would be neat. Obviously not to replace the current AP explanation placings, just a nice spot for a general referral.

Good idea.

~ Charging rules before the normal movement rules? Why?

Uhh, because it occurs  in the phase first?

~ Would it be easier to just to say apply a -1 ATK for every full 6 MUs a target is away from the attacker?

I'll see. Seems like a solid idea.

~ I think the penalty for firing outside of the LOS should be removed. I'm pretty sure that is covered by the range penalties anyways, yeah? Less modifiers equals quicker play.

The idea was to represent zone of control, and that having a metal behemoth charging in your face would perhaps attract your attention more than his buddy farther back in the battlefield. Also, prevents COs from being killed off too quickly.

~ Seems like the Defend rule, by the nature of its name, should increase Defense as opposed to Armor. This would also allow the Shield bonus to make more sense. Overall I think this would make the attack phase flow smoother as well. At this point you give the defender three opportunities to avoid damage which to me seems to be an excess. I understand that many of these things require AP but still... a game about hitting is far more entertaining than a game about missing.

I am thinking about cutting Parry out. Shields as they are are good enough. I will change the name to Blocking, since one faction relies on Armor.

~ Damage Table... how about taking a point off of Disabling Hit and adding it to Machine Damaged? (5 ~ 8 / 9 ~10 / 11 ~ 12). Disabling Hit seems pretty massive, ya know? Though I guess the probability curve already aims things towards Machine Damaged... ... ...

The curve was taken into account. Although, having Disabling at 10 seems kinda unforgiving. Calls for some tweaks.

~ I like the idea of alternating attack actions. Then again, this may be the norm for wargames, I wouldn't know since I've never been involved in such gaming (though it sounds fun).

I've been on the receiving end of Warhammer 40k games (shooting is done side-by side) where 40% of my army was blasted off the table before being able to react.

In G-Ops, alternate attack activation is there to represent the to-and-fro firing of snap shots between both sides, and to provide a semblance of balance, taking away a potentially huge advantage of the guy with initiative.

~ Avoid repeating rules and tables in the example.

The example was lazily copypasted. I apologize.

All of that said, it sounds like a really good start to me. =)

Thanks!

[contracycle]

About the retreat rule, I have to ask, why would it be problematic to simulate fear? On the other hand it would be a simple affair to make PCs extra resilient to morale issues.

The thing is, it's a big deal to tell a player how their character acts.  The character is after all their primary vehicle for play, and you are taking control of it, which pretty much makes their presence irrelevant.  So there is a huge difference between saying "you are afraid, you run away", and saying "you are afraid, how do you react".  Different players may respond differentlly depending on how they see their character.

I'm not saying "this is wrong and bad, take it out".  I am saying, dictating PC behaviour obviates roleplaying.  Hopefully, you can can create some interesting and entertaining rules to fill this gap.  Maybe you can provided a choice between, say, running or freezing, or running and gaining a point in a trait called PTSD, or between running to a friendly or running to the rear and so forth.

You might want to take a look at a game called 3:16; it's not a direct match for your concept, but you might find some of its ideas useful or inspiring.  You might be able to mine the fear effect as a means of providing players with a way to portray their characters response to warfare and violence.

[MacLeod]

Uhh, because it occurs  in the phase first?

Hm, is there a penalty for a machine to fire at melee range? Otherwise, it seems like you could make charge apart of the Attack phase requiring an AP. Sort of a surprise melee out of nowhere sort of thing. I'm just mulling over the tactical reasoning for charging outside of the bonuses.

The idea was to represent zone of control, and that having a metal behemoth charging in your face would perhaps attract your attention more than his buddy farther back in the battlefield. Also, prevents COs from being killed off too quickly.

Okay, so let's see... Wouldn't it make more sense if the rule was, if a target is engaged with you and you fire at someone who isn't engaged with you, apply a -2 ATK.
I'm sure it can be worded better... but it makes more sense if you have to take a penalty for diverting your attention to someone who doesn't have you in their sights. Now, if you had a d00d in your sights but that guy has his attention elsewhere... you shouldn't suffer a penalty for shooting his pal a few feet to his left, ya know?

I am thinking about cutting Parry out. Shields as they are are good enough. I will change the name to Blocking, since one faction relies on Armor.

Do shields provide a passive bonus of any kind?

Okay, here is an idea out of left field. It just popped into my head and I figured I would share with you.

Remove Armor Penetration, keep Parry... Armor combines with Structure for a stat called Damage Threshold or something. If Damage Tokens equal Damage Threshold, the machine is irrevocably destroyed. Three levels of damage application (1, 2 and 3 Damage Tokens) instead of Knockdown and Disabling Hit. This is effectively two levels of health for the machines, damage first applies to Armor... which is the easiest to repair. Once damage surpasses Armor the pilot might get scared and permanently flee, or eject for freedom. Whenever damage is dealt to Structure a special roll is made. Each roll has a pretty decent chance of blowing the whole machine up. This is called the Critical State.

[Ron Edwards]

I'm interested in the character advancement. At present, you win battles and act in-character, and your character and squad (if I'm reading correctly) improves. Then you get to fight more battles with better competence and bigger stuff. You improve more, and rinse, repeat.

Does any of that cycle have anything to do with the wars or other features of the setting? In other words, as my character and squad get really really good, is there any chance I might actually resolve some of the tensions and larger military concerns you describe?

I'm not asking because I think either "yes" or "no" is the better answer. I'm asking because which it is makes a huge difference to the point of playing the game at all.

And if I understand the point of playing better, then I can offer more relevant advice about the rules. For instance, I don't think the discussion of the role of fear (specifically whether "you're afraid" should be subject to dice methods at all) can get anywhere useful unless that point is known. I mean, Gareth (contracycle) was certainly right to pinpoint it as an important rule, but we can ping-pong all day about whether "simulate fear" trumps "obviates role-playing," whereas with the point of play better in hand, the issue will be neatly and swiftly resolved.

Best, Ron

[Silicon God]

Uhh, because it occurs  in the phase first?

Hm, is there a penalty for a machine to fire at melee range? Otherwise, it seems like you could make charge apart of the Attack phase requiring an AP. Sort of a surprise melee out of nowhere sort of thing. I'm just mulling over the tactical reasoning for charging outside of the bonuses.

Having the declaration of charges at the start of the movement phase makes the opponent have to decide, attempt to break away and outmaneuver the charger, denying him the charge, or take it and start shooting, hopefully stopping the attacker in its tracks. Some weapons cannot fire at close ranges. Another intention of the charge rule is to prevent speedy units from zooming around all day in flight mode taking pot shots (while that may in some way be "realistic" its not very fun. Eventually they are going to fail a maneuver check being in engagment of a charging unit and be forced into melee.

The idea was to represent zone of control, and that having a metal behemoth charging in your face would perhaps attract your attention more than his buddy farther back in the battlefield. Also, prevents COs from being killed off too quickly.

Okay, so let's see... Wouldn't it make more sense if the rule was, if a target is engaged with you and you fire at someone who isn't engaged with you, apply a -2 ATK.
I'm sure it can be worded better... but it makes more sense if you have to take a penalty for diverting your attention to someone who doesn't have you in their sights. Now, if you had a d00d in your sights but that guy has his attention elsewhere... you shouldn't suffer a penalty for shooting his pal a few feet to his left, ya know?

I don't quite get the wording of your post, but I'll try to respond. You take the -2 penalty if there is an enemy engaging you, and you're trying to shoot someone else. Engaging, defined as being the closest enemy who has LOS to you. I'll change the wording of the rule.

I am thinking about cutting Parry out. Shields as they are are good enough. I will change the name to Blocking, since one faction relies on Armor.

Do shields provide a passive bonus of any kind? Static +1 to Armor when defending. There is a faction that relies on armor; Solus. Their units are not so agile, but are well-armored. The Defend rule is there to make heavily armored units viable, while not being overpowered.

Okay, here is an idea out of left field. It just popped into my head and I figured I would share with you.

Remove Armor Penetration, keep Parry... Armor combines with Structure for a stat called Damage Threshold or something. If Damage Tokens equal Damage Threshold, the machine is irrevocably destroyed. Three levels of damage application (1, 2 and 3 Damage Tokens) instead of Knockdown and Disabling Hit. This is effectively two levels of health for the machines, damage first applies to Armor... which is the easiest to repair. Once damage surpasses Armor the pilot might get scared and permanently flee, or eject for freedom. Whenever damage is dealt to Structure a special roll is made. Each roll has a pretty decent chance of blowing the whole machine up. This is called the Critical State.

The point of separating Armor and Structure was to allow for the one-hit kill seen in mecha shows, I feel it makes for a tense and exciting game where no one is safe (while giving personalities ample options to stay alive). I didn't want a slow fill-in-the-box grind with the occasional spectacular explosion like in Battletech. The rule works in reinforcing the nature of armor stopping the shot entirely or being pierced instead of being an ablative stat like HP.

[Silicon God]

I'm interested in the character advancement. At present, you win battles and act in-character, and your character and squad (if I'm reading correctly) improves. Then you get to fight more battles with better competence and bigger stuff. You improve more, and rinse, repeat.

You read correctly. Excellent.

Does any of that cycle have anything to do with the wars or other features of the setting? In other words, as my character and squad get really really good, is there any chance I might actually resolve some of the tensions and larger military concerns you describe?

Yes, I plan to feature individual battles accruing Victory points for scenario campaigns or Territory in the case of map campaigns. Canon-wise, while its quite a ways off I'd plan on accommodating rules like that in the storyline. Branching paths and the like. Squad progress is measured by three things tentatively; Requisition points, Renown and Rank.

I'm not asking because I think either "yes" or "no" is the better answer. I'm asking because which it is makes a huge difference to the point of playing the game at all.

And if I understand the point of playing better, then I can offer more relevant advice about the rules. For instance, I don't think the discussion of the role of fear (specifically whether "you're afraid" should be subject to dice methods at all) can get anywhere useful unless that point is known. I mean, Gareth (contracycle) was certainly right to pinpoint it as an important rule, but we can ping-pong all day about whether "simulate fear" trumps "obviates role-playing," whereas with the point of play better in hand, the issue will be neatly and swiftly resolved.

Best, Ron

Hm, perhaps the behavior I would like to reinforce or rather discourage would be to send troops out on hopeless missions - they aren't that brave to die for nothing. I'd like to say that the game rewards "tactical withdrawal"; not every battle is a zero-sum meat grinder. The whole, "fight again another day" thing. Losing troops is bad, period. And if anyone's noticed the Character Skills, there exists a specific feature for that; the skill "Guts". And whether that decision obviates roleplaying or not... Its up to the jury to decide. COs/PCs aren't too susceptible to fear, having EX points and Skill ranks and all.

Thanks for reading, all you!

[Silicon God]

New revision, taking heed of some of your comments;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/jlzzqjmjfi4/G-ops- starter rules v0.6c.rtf

On that note I'm looking for people with Hamachi to playtest with.

[MacLeod]

In your attack and damage example, the table isn't updated to reflect the new ranges.

A problem arises here...

A unit is engaged with the closest visible target in its LOS within 3 MU.

when this shows up.

Any enemy unit in this area is deemed as engaged by the unit.

The first part seems to imply that each unit may only be engaged with one opponent at a time... while the second part implies that the unit can be engaged with multiple opponents. Clarification is in order.

[Silicon God]

Oh man, I missed those. Shameful.

Geh. I'll try to fix 'em tonight, and get a rudimentary version of the campaign and RP mechanics up after work.

...I did remember to add the flight rules this time around.

Sorry!