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

[MacLeod]

No real need for apologies. I'm just trying to be helpful. =D

I'll do a more in-depth reading of your next version.

[mjbauer]

I'm really interested in this game. I haven't had a chance to read through the rules yet but I'm excited to get to it. Sounds like something I would enjoy.

[Silicon God]

I have fixed the errors and have started work on the campaign stuff.

Bleh, I have had no replies in the -other- message boards I posted this up to.

Oh well. Here's a general idea spam of what's going to be in the campaign/cinematic section. Not really that understandable since they're just a bunch of notes, but who knows, they might grab someone's attention.

Characters
====================================

Personalities

Veteran Pilot (+1 piloting and marksmanship)
Sergeant (Leadership skill)
Operator (+1 Rally checks)
Marksman (+2 marksmanship)
Prodigy Pilot (+2 piloting)

Standard Pilots

====================================
Roleplaying

Downtime versus Combat

====================================

Motivation

What does the character want/fight for?
Gives special SP Skill.

Pride - You fight to prove yourself to the world.
Hope - You fight for a better tomorrow.
Revenge - You fight to take revenge upon your enemies or the world.
Affection - You fight for the sake of others.
Ambition - You fight for a tomorrow only you can bring about.
Fury - You fight to destroy your enemies.
Fear - You fight to survive.
Courage - You fight for what is right.
Desire - You fight in exchange for something you want.
Grief - You fight to take away the pain of a past experience.
Remorse - You fight to mitigate your mistakes from the past.

==========================================

XP Rewards

Personal Kill +15 XP
(If personality was killed) +30 XP
MVP +15 XP
Intelligence Bonus +d3 x Intelligence
Personally accomplished Objective +20XP
Survival Bonus +5 XP
==========================================

Progress Rewards

Characteristic Increase
SP Skill learned
Machine upgraded
Skill level up
Becomes a Personality

==========================================

Requisition Rewards

Won a battle +500 RP
Participated in battle +250 RP
Enemy destroyed 10% of enemy RP value
Enemy damaged 20% of enemy RP value
Enemy captured 50% of enemy RP value
+100 RP for every VP or Territory so far

===========================================

Injury Chart

Dies of Injuries Later
Comatose
Crippled
Lost Limb
Lost Eye
Captured
Mentally Traumatized
Major Wounds
Minor Wounds
Unscathed

============================================

Mercenaries


============================================

Victory Points Campaign

Flowchart ==>> Alternative Missions

=============================================

Map Campaign

Territories

=============================================

Optional Rules

Part Damage
Alternative Critical Hit Charts
Expanded Terrain Rules

[Silicon God]

Apologies for the WALLOFTEXT quote.

New version out, more or less completely playable. Just missing the fluff/gamemastering, scenarios and campaign sections. Includes rules for custom squads, fixed weapon statistics, character advancement and new characters.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/imzgdzvrfyy/G-ops- starter rules v0.75b.rtf

Thanks!

[MacLeod]

Impressions from a quick skim through the document...
(by the way, please don't take my small wording corrections as dick headery!)

I'm wondering if Charge really needs its own sub-phase. A guy charges over to a dude who then may, subsequently, leave... negating the bonuses he spent his hard earned AP on. If anything, I think Charge should be usable during the Combat Phase. A guy thinks he is safe from your megahammer o' robot breakin', but little does your opponent realize that an AP has been saved especially for his ass.
Hm... Well, if you outright despise the idea of using charge like a sudden sneak attack, which I think is really cool to be honest, you could always playtest both sides of that coin to see which works out better. Of course there is that other option where you completely ignore me. =)

Under Terrain you mention that it can be broken down into three major types as opposed to four, which is what you actually mean.

Would declaring Ammo Burn after rolling make a little more sense? A robot guy is shooting his gun, he can decide before the end of his burst whether or not to continue firing. This allows the players to evaluate his results before using this precious resource. Either way, its a gamble but it is more of a strategic decision this way as well.

The Block option is incorrectly labeled as the Defend option.

Damage Table in the example is off.

Spelling error in both the Weird and Compulsive Personality descriptions.
---------------~~~~~~~~~~---------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------~~~~~~~~~~---------------
I should probably take a better look at it soon but right now I'm heading off to bed. =)

[Silicon God]

Impressions from a quick skim through the document...
(by the way, please don't take my small wording corrections as dick headery!)

I welcome all comments. Just not "Play X system instead your work sucks. (/bitter)

I'm wondering if Charge really needs its own sub-phase. A guy charges over to a dude who then may, subsequently, leave... negating the bonuses he spent his hard earned AP on. If anything, I think Charge should be usable during the Combat Phase. A guy thinks he is safe from your megahammer o' robot breakin', but little does your opponent realize that an AP has been saved especially for his ass.
Hm... Well, if you outright despise the idea of using charge like a sudden sneak attack, which I think is really cool to be honest, you could always playtest both sides of that coin to see which works out better. Of course there is that other option where you completely ignore me. =)

Now your logic's starting to make sense to me. Hmm, might change charge into a regular move plus an additional charge in the combat phase, instead of a double move in the move phase. Wonderful! Sounds excellent.

Under Terrain you mention that it can be broken down into three major types as opposed to four, which is what you actually mean.

Oh.

Would declaring Ammo Burn after rolling make a little more sense? A robot guy is shooting his gun, he can decide before the end of his burst whether or not to continue firing. This allows the players to evaluate his results before using this precious resource. Either way, its a gamble but it is more of a strategic decision this way as well.

Hm, true.

The Block option is incorrectly labeled as the Defend option.

I just noticed after I posted. Doh.

Damage Table in the example is off.

Spelling error in both the Weird and Compulsive Personality descriptions.
---------------~~~~~~~~~~---------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------~~~~~~~~~~---------------
I should probably take a better look at it soon but right now I'm heading off to bed. =)
No probs. You have been a great help. Thanks!

[Silicon God]

Sorry for doubleposting, but I've been having problems chucking in the roleplaying section. What I'd like to accomplish is having other players involved in the game, having an emotional stake beyond combat... Which sounds awfully vague, and now you get why its hard. Its hard to add roleplaying in a combat-focused game since the combat dominates the attention, so to speak. At times, the RP parts just seem boring for some. But its hard to make a tactical RPG, much less a war RPG, without combat! Aargh... this is something like the D&D conundrum.

tl;dr

How I shot RP in combat game?

[Noclue]

Are there any rules in the game that aren't devoted to combat?

What behaviors do you want to see players do when they're not in a combat?

Also, your list of motivations are nice, but they're all abstract. People don't fight for abstract concepts. They fight because they've internalized those abstract concepts and identified them with the concrete. I think you need those abstractions to be refined by the player and filled with personal meaning. So, I think less "revenge against your enemies" and more "vaporizing the fuckers that killed my pah!"

[MacLeod]

I welcome all comments. Just not "Play X system instead your work sucks. (/bitter)

Indeed. No one wants to hear such drivel and frankly, such individuals should feel ashamed of spouting it.
On the other hand, I do recommend checking out other products for research reasons. Especially those that combine tactical wargaming with RPG aspects. That might help you understand how to make a more robust Role Playing side to your game.
Have you looked at the Vice & Virtue thread I have here on the Forge? I think such a system might work well with folks normally not engaged in role playing. Once they start getting into and out of trouble because of the way the dice dictate their actions, they might materialize an actual personality for their character. Then again, maybe not... It is an angle you take a look at the game from at least.

I'm wondering... Did someone tell you to go play Heavy Gear and/or Mekton? I will say one thing about Heavy Gear, the game's setting (Terra Nova) is full of neat stuff for all different sorts of campaigns.
I bought the core book and a few supplements a while back and have only now gotten around to reading them. I've been, like you, trying to build a cinematic and lite tactical RPG. My hope is to one day be able to run a campaign set in an alternate time line Terra Nova. In any event, it seems like you have a lot better ideas in specific spots as our games compare!

/end random tangent

Now your logic's starting to make sense to me. Hmm, might change charge into a regular move plus an additional charge in the combat phase, instead of a double move in the move phase. Wonderful! Sounds excellent.

Glad I could be of service. I've never played a war game before (unless HeroClix counts) but I think I have a natural knack for it... Probably something to do with the seemingly endless stream of Strategy JRPGs I play. =P

No probs. You have been a great help. Thanks!

My pleasure. =)

[Silicon God]

Are there any rules in the game that aren't devoted to combat?

Well, I plan for there to be. And I implemented the whole EX Point deal in order to reward good roleplaying; as incentive for rollplayers. I just don't know how to start.

What behaviors do you want to see players do when they're not in a combat?

Want 'em to get involved in the plot, basically. Planning and stuff for the combat scenarios as well.

Also, your list of motivations are nice, but they're all abstract. People don't fight for abstract concepts. They fight because they've internalized those abstract concepts and identified them with the concrete. I think you need those abstractions to be refined by the player and filled with personal meaning. So, I think less "revenge against your enemies" and more "vaporizing the fuckers that killed my pah!"

That was the intention, the motivations are supposed to be tailored to the character basically.

I welcome all comments. Just not "Play X system instead your work sucks. (/bitter)

Indeed. No one wants to hear such drivel and frankly, such individuals should feel ashamed of spouting it.
On the other hand, I do recommend checking out other products for research reasons. Especially those that combine tactical wargaming with RPG aspects. That might help you understand how to make a more robust Role Playing side to your game.

Any ideas? I've read through the GW Specialist Games, D&D, Mekton and the like.

Have you looked at the Vice & Virtue thread I have here on the Forge? I think such a system might work well with folks normally not engaged in role playing. Once they start getting into and out of trouble because of the way the dice dictate their actions, they might materialize an actual personality for their character. Then again, maybe not... It is an angle you take a look at the game from at least.

I will. Sounds good.

I'm wondering... Did someone tell you to go play Heavy Gear and/or Mekton? I will say one thing about Heavy Gear, the game's setting (Terra Nova) is full of neat stuff for all different sorts of campaigns.
I bought the core book and a few supplements a while back and have only now gotten around to reading them. I've been, like you, trying to build a cinematic and lite tactical RPG. My hope is to one day be able to run a campaign set in an alternate time line Terra Nova. In any event, it seems like you have a lot better ideas in specific spots as our games compare!


Yep, I've read through both and figured they didn't really cater to the sort of experience my group wanted, hence me creating this project in the first  place. Setting-wise, Terra Nova's got a very western flavor from my point of view. For EotB, I'm going for more of a Xenogears-style world, where medieval civilizations coexist with theocratic superpowers and industrial giants. Or something like that...
/end random tangent

Now your logic's starting to make sense to me. Hmm, might change charge into a regular move plus an additional charge in the combat phase, instead of a double move in the move phase. Wonderful! Sounds excellent.

Glad I could be of service. I've never played a war game before (unless HeroClix counts) but I think I have a natural knack for it... Probably something to do with the seemingly endless stream of Strategy JRPGs I play. =P

No probs. You have been a great help. Thanks!

My pleasure. =)

[MacLeod]

Any ideas? I've read through the GW Specialist Games, D&D, Mekton and the like.

Out of all the games I've read, Heavy Gear seems to be the best of the bunch in terms of roleplaying possibilities. Why? Because of the robust setting. The work of creating a setting of that depth is daunting to say the least, especially for one person. It will enhance the roleplaying part of the game immensely especially once the players start affecting the world and interacting with it rather than simply destroying pieces of it.
You've already got the foundation for a setting going, all you can really do is slowly but surely refine and expand it. =) In the meanwhile, you may as well concentrate on making tightly focused and thoroughly playtested tactical mechanics.

Also...
I know Games Workshops but what are these Specialist Games you refer to?

I will. Sounds good.

That said, roleplaying mechanics aren't for everyone. For some it may leave a bad taste in their mouth... its worth a shot though. In addition, I've never claimed to be a master game designer (I haven't even published anything) so the quality of the mechanics I wrote may or may not be relevant to that information. At least they are generic enough to work for just about any game...

Yep, I've read through both and figured they didn't really cater to the sort of experience my group wanted, hence me creating this project in the first  place. Setting-wise, Terra Nova's got a very western flavor from my point of view. For EotB, I'm going for more of a Xenogears-style world, where medieval civilizations coexist with theocratic superpowers and industrial giants. Or something like that...

I definitely agree with your observation of Terra Nova. Xenogears is... sadly enough... a game I have not played. I played through the first Xenosaga game though and it was pretty underwhelming. One day I'll get a copy of Xenogears and check it out though...

[Silicon God]

Well, I've received criticism on another board and it wasn't pleasant to read. Apparently my approach is too videogamey, boring and not tactical and doesn't convey the spirit of the mecha genre.

Eh, I don't get it.

Any ideas? I've read through the GW Specialist Games, D&D, Mekton and the like.

Out of all the games I've read, Heavy Gear seems to be the best of the bunch in terms of roleplaying possibilities. Why? Because of the robust setting. The work of creating a setting of that depth is daunting to say the least, especially for one person. It will enhance the roleplaying part of the game immensely especially once the players start affecting the world and interacting with it rather than simply destroying pieces of it.
You've already got the foundation for a setting going, all you can really do is slowly but surely refine and expand it. =) In the meanwhile, you may as well concentrate on making tightly focused and thoroughly playtested tactical mechanics.

And that's what makes 40k fun despite the wonky game design.

Also...
I know Games Workshops but what are these Specialist Games you refer to?

Stuff like Mordheim/Necromunda, Epic and Battlefleet Gothic. More or less the red-headed stepchildren of GW.

I will. Sounds good.

That said, roleplaying mechanics aren't for everyone. For some it may leave a bad taste in their mouth... its worth a shot though. In addition, I've never claimed to be a master game designer (I haven't even published anything) so the quality of the mechanics I wrote may or may not be relevant to that information. At least they are generic enough to work for just about any game...

I've read through 'em. Gotta say, I appreciate the effort that's gone into your interpretation but I plan to go around on my work in another way.

Yep, I've read through both and figured they didn't really cater to the sort of experience my group wanted, hence me creating this project in the first  place. Setting-wise, Terra Nova's got a very western flavor from my point of view. For EotB, I'm going for more of a Xenogears-style world, where medieval civilizations coexist with theocratic superpowers and industrial giants. Or something like that...

I definitely agree with your observation of Terra Nova. Xenogears is... sadly enough... a game I have not played. I played through the first Xenosaga game though and it was pretty underwhelming. One day I'll get a copy of Xenogears and check it out though...

I've gotta say, if there'd be something I was a fanboy of it would be Xenogears. Xenosaga.... there was something off about it. It certainly had a different feel.

[Simon C]

Josh,

I think the reason that you're not getting the feedback that you are hoping for is that you haven't described excatly what you want your game to be.  I'm getting "Tactical Mecha combat game with some roleplaying".  The trouble is, that means different things to different people.  Let's start:

"Tactical":  When I hear something described as tactical, I imagine making lots of small-scale choices that will increase or decrease my chances of winning in a competative environment.  Tactical games are very hard to design because optimal choices are very easy to find, meaning that the decisions are effectively removed.  What choices does your game present, and how do they affect your chances of winning? 

My favorite tactical wargame is "Mechaton", a game about Lego Mecha.  It requires you to make a lot of tactical choices about the equipment, deployment, and movement of your mechs. 

In my experience there is one thing that is supremely important in tactical gameplay. "Variable resources" means that there are several resources in the game, and these resources have values that are not clear.  There are lots of examples of this.  For example, position in a battle is a variable resource.  Is it more valuable to be in cover, or closer to your objective? Lots of boardgames use elements like this.  For example, Settlers of Catan has a set of resources with shifting, unclear values.  Trading these resources is the basis of the game.  In chess, you trade minor pieces for position on the board.  Is it worth sacrificing a Knight to get your Queen into position? In the context of a mecha game, variable resources could be things like Heat, Ammunition, Power, and so on.  The decisions are things like "Is it worth heating up my guns this round (and not shooting next round) in order to get shots off now?" or "Is it more important to shift power to my legs, to move fast, or to my guns, to shoot more?"

"Mecha"</a>: Mecha means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  It's a genre, as well as a kind of robot thing.  Do you mean Japanese Giant Robot stories? Teenagers in giant killing machines? Battletech? Some people associate Mecha with certain kinds of stories.  If your game doesn't deliver those stories (and a tactical wargame won't), you need to be upfront about that.  What kind of stories does your game help people to tell? Is it about telling stories at all?

"Combat": This could be one of two things.  Either you're playing a competitive game where the objective is to "beat" the opposition (possibly provided by a GM), or you're telling a story about a combat.  Trying to do both is a very tricky thing.  It sounds like you're doing the first, which is totally cool.  You may find that it makes it very difficult to introduce rules that don't serve that function.  People are lazy.  If they're playing a game where "winning" means beating other mechs in combat, they're very likely to ignore or at least be very disinterested in rules that don't apply to that situation.

"Roleplaying"</a>: This could mean anything.  I'm hearing that you want to add "roleplaying" to your game, but I don't know what you mean.  Do you mean "the players sometimes talk as if they were their character"? do you mean "the players sometimes make suboptimal choices because that's what their character would do"? do you mean "the players can describe actions which the rules don't cover, and the GM can adjudicate rules for that"?

"Roleplaying" isn't one thing.  It's a whole bunch of techniques that sometimes get applied to the same games.  Before I can tell you how to encourage "roleplaying" in your game, I need to know what that means.

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to read and play as many other mecha roleplaying games as you can.  Not because "they've done it better so you shouldn't bother", but because research is an important tool in design.  Even if you hate every single game that you read, working out what you hate about them will tell you what you love about your own. 

[Silicon God]

Josh,

I think the reason that you're not getting the feedback that you are hoping for is that you haven't described excatly what you want your game to be.  I'm getting "Tactical Mecha combat game with some roleplaying".  The trouble is, that means different things to different people.  Let's start:

>> Thank you for taking the time to comment. Much appreciated.


"Tactical":  When I hear something described as tactical, I imagine making lots of small-scale choices that will increase or decrease my chances of winning in a competative environment.  Tactical games are very hard to design because optimal choices are very easy to find, meaning that the decisions are effectively removed.  What choices does your game present, and how do they affect your chances of winning? 

My favorite tactical wargame is "Mechaton", a game about Lego Mecha.  It requires you to make a lot of tactical choices about the equipment, deployment, and movement of your mechs. 

Getting your results sooner, rather than later. Although taking an aggressive approach can make battles end faster, you may end up on the wrong footing losing initiative and pay dearly. In short, risk vs reward; do i attack more and risk getting shot by the opponent and have no chance to defend? (using the distribution of AP for example)

I'd like to not overcomplicate the tactical engine, because I'd like to leave ample time for mass battles and the like.

In my experience there is one thing that is supremely important in tactical gameplay. "Variable resources" means that there are several resources in the game, and these resources have values that are not clear.  There are lots of examples of this.  For example, position in a battle is a variable resource.  Is it more valuable to be in cover, or closer to your objective? Lots of boardgames use elements like this.  For example, Settlers of Catan has a set of resources with shifting, unclear values.  Trading these resources is the basis of the game.  In chess, you trade minor pieces for position on the board.  Is it worth sacrificing a Knight to get your Queen into position? In the context of a mecha game, variable resources could be things like Heat, Ammunition, Power, and so on.  The decisions are things like "Is it worth heating up my guns this round (and not shooting next round) in order to get shots off now?" or "Is it more important to shift power to my legs, to move fast, or to my guns, to shoot more?"

The following elements are what I consider to lend the spice to the tactical engine;

Equipment; different units, different loadouts, different rules.

AP; variable and valuable resource, represents battlefield conditions, communications, command and control and stuff. can either go well or badly.

Positioning; attack modifiers and cover. Every little modifier is important, hence the use of d6's, small numbers and high lethality. I intended for the combat to be deadlier, in the sense that getting hit in the first place is a dangerous proposition; sometimes even entailing instant death.

The players themselves and the decisions they make

"Mecha"

I've only posted the combat rules and a basic framework, which I admit is something of a mistake considering I'm posting to roleplaying forums. Ack. Nevertheless, I'm working on a good roleplaying mechanic I'm about to release.

Basically, the feel is "a virgin battlefield; young people on a planet which has rarely seen conflict being thrust into a senseless war." Part of the high lethality of the combat system ties into that; some people developed by the story may die suddenly and for no good reason at all. Its part of the story and tragedy that the conflict brings.

"Combat": This could be one of two things.  Either you're playing a competitive game where the objective is to "beat" the opposition (possibly provided by a GM), or you're telling a story about a combat.  Trying to do both is a very tricky thing.  It sounds like you're doing the first, which is totally cool.  You may find that it makes it very difficult to introduce rules that don't serve that function.  People are lazy.  If they're playing a game where "winning" means beating other mechs in combat, they're very likely to ignore or at least be very disinterested in rules that don't apply to that situation.

Hence my dilemma. Although I hope my current ideas will somehow mitigate or at least minimize the temptation. On the other hand, I could offer different styles of play...


"Roleplaying"</a>: This could mean anything.  I'm hearing that you want to add "roleplaying" to your game, but I don't know what you mean.  Do you mean "the players sometimes talk as if they were their character"? do you mean "the players sometimes make suboptimal choices because that's what their character would do"? do you mean "the players can describe actions which the rules don't cover, and the GM can adjudicate rules for that"?

"Roleplaying" isn't one thing.  It's a whole bunch of techniques that sometimes get applied to the same games.  Before I can tell you how to encourage "roleplaying" in your game, I need to know what that means.

> *mm-hmm* Players and the GM work together in creating a cast of characters; some characters (CO's, personalities and the like) are POV characters, the players "run" these characters.

Run/roleplay as in; control the direct actions of, speak for and decide for and all that jazz.

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to read and play as many other mecha roleplaying games as you can.  Not because "they've done it better so you shouldn't bother", but because research is an important tool in design.  Even if you hate every single game that you read, working out what you hate about them will tell you what you love about your own. 

>> Yes, not just mecha games but all sorts of sci-fi RPG.

>>Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll consider all these in due time.

[Silicon God]

Been working on the project a while, and I've got a few questions...

Has anyone had any experiences concerning a system wherein the players themselves have a hand in creating the cast of characters above and beyond their own and not just the GM?

Is it a good idea to institute actual character rewards (i.e. EX Points, as M&M does with Hero Points) within roleplaying sections? Or would that ultimately defeat the purpose of the roleplaying sections as means to develop characters and advance the storyline?

Structured cooperative roleplaying, putting scenes into a certain order, i.e. Introduction, Development, Conflict, Resolution; yea or nay?

My basic idea is to simulate your average mecha anime episode, with character development and chit-chat leading up to the obligatory battle scene (Which may take part in another episode).