Fight the Nazis as a reckless daring 1940's spy

[JSDiamond]

"Rhinegart Station-South" is a noir, pulp action style rpg set in 1940 Europe. Just a bit of fun I'm working on. You can download it from my site's main page, just scroll down. It's in .pdf format.

http://www.orbit-rpg.com

Right now it's just 8 thin pages, quirky system, let me know what you think.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jeff,

My apologies for not getting back to you about this sooner. I've given the game a pretty good read and have lots of comments.

1. Wow, this is quite the game. I sense a certain Elfs influence, turning the "Dumb Luck" concept toward a far more serious yet still entertaining purpose, and really making the most out of sharing the power around the table. I look forward to your illustrations, too; I'm imagining a lot of solid blacks and moody stuff.

2. Uh oh - you've completely switched the terms "Author" and "Director" for Stances, 100%. The way to look at it is like this. If Joe is the player ...
- Joe says, "The SS guy is in the park? [this had been established by the GM already] Good. I [meaning my character] go to the park for my morning stroll." (Author Stance - the character doesn't know the guy is in the park, but Joe does, so he "makes" his character go there for some other reason.)

- Joe says, "The SS guy's extra pistol is on the desk, so I take it." (Director Stance - Joe just established the existence of the pistol in the game-world.)

- Joe says, "The SS guy is not paying attention [the GM had not previously established this], so I walk behind and past him. (Director Stance - Joe took over the NPC.)

Your examples of all the Stances are all rock-solid perfect if you switch Director with Author throughout the text, so once you put'em back where they belong, all will be spiff.

3. One thing that puzzles me is a double-message about using one score vs. rolling all three and choosing. Going by the first explanation in the rules, you may (a) roll a given score, or (b) roll all three and then choose which one to use. But later, you describe Luck as acting very differently - it only acts as a pool-based modifier to one of the other two scores, and it cannot be rolled singly. Now I'm confused, because earlier, the rules explicitly state that you may choose to roll any of the three scores singly.

As far as I can tell, you wrote these two sections at different times and haven't really baked out how to do it, in the text. My call is to get rid of all the material about Luck modifying the other scores and being treated as a pool you use up. Just treat it as one of the three scores, and use it like them (rolled singly or as part of the triple roll), and take it from there.

4. You use the term "skill" for two very different things in the text, which is confusing. On the one hand, it's a blanket term for choosing to roll one die rather than all three. On the other, it's also used to describe personal training and background within the score "Talent." Let's see if I can diagram it ...

[Skill [ [Luck] or [Rail] or [Talent [skills]]]] or [Instinct]

I suggest coming up with some other term besides "Skill" for the oppositional term to "Instinct," and let "skills" continue to be a subset of Talent.

5. Your suggestion that the GM come up with nearly all of the details of the character's situation after the three dice are rolled (in an Instinct situation) is kind of problematic. Surely the player needs some orientation about what's going on prior to choosing Skill vs. Instinct. Furthermore, given that the GM can see the three-dice outcome, that would seem to provide the GM with some ammunition to hose the player through the situation's details, forcing the situation to make using the highest-rolled die more difficult to use.

Perhaps you could provide a full example of the dialogue and reasoning among three players and a GM of such a roll and all the role-playing that surrounds it?

6. The discussion of character death is a little problematic, because the sentence,

Naturally, there may arise some situations that would bend this rule (GM's discretion).

... completely negates everything preceding it in the paragraph. Let's go over these possibilities.

a) The player jumps off the Alps into a horrible jagged chasm and states, "I don't die," and refusing to provide any justification. According to the player, the character lives even though he plummeted down the chasm and did indeed break upon the rocks at the bottom. Why? "The game doesn't say I'm dead." Yes, this player is being an asshole. He is "winning" because he has made the game less fun for everyone.

b) The player jumps off the Alps, but narrates that the character ends up alive in a snowdrift. The GM says, "No, you die, it's my discretion as it says in the rules, and you die." In this case, the GM is being an asshole.

Now, granted, there's no actual full-scale defense against assholes except not to play with them ... but I do think rules-sets can be constructed to make the above behaviors less likely. Check out the games Prince Valiant and Castle Falkenstein to see how they deal with "death by narration only" in very solid ways.

7. Finally, I think the game needs a very concrete consequence for getting caught. If the player-character ends up captured by the Nazis, what happens? I suggest that "playing it out" is not the solution, but rather a "Fate" or "Epilogue" instead.

Best,
Ron

[JSDiamond]

Wow, this is quite the game. I sense a certain Elfs influence, turning the "Dumb Luck" concept toward a far more serious yet still entertaining purpose, and really making the most out of sharing the power around the table

Yes, the game is definitely inspired by Elfs.  I love that system.  And let me address another comment here because it kinda' fits in.  The choice to roll vs. one or all three stats is more of my acknowledgment of the standard RPG "one-action to one die-roll" thing.  For example: My brother's group plays RIFTS and when I dropped this on them I could see right away that they would almost always prefer to draw their silenced Tokarov pistols and blast away, if they could get away with it unseen by civilians.  So I thought (as I do in Orbit) give them the choice to do it the old familiar way, and ease them into other stances.      

Which brings up...    
Author and Director stance... I knew I had something messed up there.   I didn't understand the nuances, but I think that I understand them now.  Thanks for providing those examples.

Your suggestion that the GM come up with nearly all of the details of the character's situation after the three dice are rolled (in an Instinct situation) is kind of problematic. Surely the player needs some orientation about what's going on prior to choosing Skill vs. Instinct.

My idea here was that these characters would be living life on the defensive almost all of the time and would react according to their personality, nature, etc.  So my thoughts here were that a 'gunbunny' type player is going to have a character with a lot of weapon skill anyway, so whatever his choice for die-rolling, he will probably be successful in that area.  

As for the GM hosing the players, you're right.  I see that I'll have to define this further.  Maybe I could define separate 'event types' that the GM *must* say prior to the die-roll.  Colorful tropes as descriptors; "Achtung!" for anything involving a tense situation unfolding; then "Bang!" the GM could say for anything involving immediate combat or gunplay.  This might clue the players a bit better. I'll have to work this out.

As for the use of the word "skill".  I always have a problem with this because I don't really know how else to refer to abilities or talents, or groups of either.  But that's my first draft.  I will clean that up too.

Perhaps you could provide a full example of the dialogue and reasoning among three players and a GM of such a roll and all the role-playing that surrounds it?

I am going to re-post an updated version with an example of in-game dialogue.    

Finally, I think the game needs a very concrete consequence for getting caught. If the player-character ends up captured by the Nazis, what happens? I suggest that "playing it out" is not the solution, but rather a "Fate" or "Epilogue" instead.

Again, this version of Rhinegart is only half-baked, I have headers in my unposted version and I'm going to work out that very thing.  The idea I have is for the player to provide the epilogue from the point of view of someone else.  Instead of narrating their own character's death scene, it might be done from the point of view of an NPC who knew them, or an eyewitness.  My thoughts here are the bleak 'noirness' of it, the truth that "you die alone" so the player doesn't narrate as themself (as their character) but severed from that person.  Death isn't shared.  It belongs to the character.  You never really *were* that character so the epilogue (or death scene narrative, etc.) is done as by an observer; friend or bystander.  Emotionally or with a detatched and/or morbid fascination.  

Maybe that's too philisophical-mumbo-jumbo, but I think you can feel what I'm going for.  If it's going to be noir, make it black as soot.

Thanks for checking it out.  And I will definitely re-post when I've addressed those problems.

[Ron Edwards]

Wow, Jeff, I really like your thoughts on the Epilogue.

As for the terms, I suggest using "Focus" for a one-die roll, meaning that the character is putting all of his or her attention into that one way to deal with the problem, and as opposed to "Instinct" which implies that the character seizes whatever offers itself as the best way to deal with it.

That way, "skills" stay just as they are for the subsets of Talent.

Best,
Ron

[JSDiamond]

Wow, Jeff, I really like your thoughts on the Epilogue.

Thanks, Ron!    

As for the terms, I suggest using "Focus" for a one-die roll, meaning that the character is putting all of his or her attention into that one way to deal with the problem, and as opposed to "Instinct" which implies that the character seizes whatever offers itself as the best way to deal with it.

"Focus" is an excellent term, -I'm going to change to that.  Thanks again.    

P.S.
I've cleaned up the orbit-rpg website and I've also added a page called "Other Projects" on the menu bar, that's where I'll be posting the updated Rhinegart (and other stuff).

[Mike Holmes]

Warning, gun nut trivia follows. I'm concerned about some of your detail. It's for color, and could go uncorrected, I suppose, but there are a couple of places where the mechanics are affected, and why not be accurate if you can?

Anyhow, the Tokarev was in fact somewhat innacurate from what I understand. The reason that Soviet officers loved it was that practically the only other option they had was the Nagant, a 1895 model revolver. What would you rather have, an Imperial era six-shooter from France, or a rugged automatic made in the homeland? But it wasn't particularly accurate. In fact, it was replaced by the Makarov in 1945, an immitation of the Walther P series which had a load of improvements.

Second, I think you're confused about what the different sorts of uses of the term "automatic" mean. All automatics are either semi-automatic, or fully automatic. So all the automatic pistols that you show are semi-automatic (the Germans had a fully automatic pistol, strangely and interestingly). And all the sub-machineguns that you have are fully automatic, some with selectors to change between the modes of fire. Anyhow, that would mean that a BAR on semi would be just as fast, rather than the penalty that you give it. That said, there were a couple of different versions of the BAR, and some just had a slow and fast rate of full auto fire. Is that what you were trying to represent?

Mike

[JSDiamond]

Mike you sure know your weapons!  And I quite agree.  The fact is, I made up the Tokarov variant model, pure fiction that.  I just wanted the Soviet or Russian characters to have something cool and exotic.      

On the "automatic" / "semi-auto" controversy, I should have edited my text better.  I meant semi-auto (for the pistols in particular) it's just the bad layman's habit of interchanging the two terms.

Anyhow, that would mean that a BAR on semi would be just as fast, rather than the penalty that you give it. That said, there were a couple of different versions of the BAR, and some just had a slow and fast rate of full auto fire. Is that what you were trying to represent?

You got that dead-on correct.  One version of the B.A.R. is listed as being slow firing in semi-auto mode, -but I think that's more of a relative term.  They probably mean in milliseconds for movement of parts (gas moving that big slide,  expending the shell, cycling the next round, etc) compared to an M-1 garand or other rifle-weapon.  That's my guess anyway.  I *did* leave out the fact that the B.A.R. and its ammo were both heavy and required two people to deploy it effectively (one to carry the ammo and one to shoulder the weapon), -characters being more heroic and all that.  But I didn't want to 'hand over the farm' so to speak, so I dropped the penalty on it.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool.

I think that one of the thematic things about playing the German is that your gadgets are better designed. Not more creative, but just very efficient. Sometimes so efficient that it's a problem. The ROF on German automatic weapons was so high that if the soldier wasn't well trained, he'd run out of ammunition almost instantly. The MP-5 was so accurate for a SMG that soldiers had to be trained to spray fire effectively in close combat.

The spray pattern happens without trying with a Thompson because of the recoil. American stuff should be creative, but of varying quality. Think Paranioa R&D. For example, the Bazooka was a terribly ineffective weapon against tanks. No wonder the RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade in this case) that's used so much today is a descendant of German anti-tank weaponry. OTOH, we had dohickies ranging from the P-38 (no, not the plane or the handgun, the little can opener that you need to get a C-Rations) to mulberries and atomic bombs. A classic example is the jeep. They're junk which you know if you've ever ridden in one. They're just remarkably effective junk.

Russian stuff should represent economy. That is, it's fun to play the Russian precisely because of the rough and tumble way the NKVD handles things. Any pistol is fine when you're pointing it in the back of the soldier from your own side who's standing just in front of you. It's only important that it's reliable. :-) Think sturdy and cheap (same philosophy that lead to the AK-47 becoming the world's most common assault rifle).

English stuff should be spartan as well. The British spy should have to rely on his own inner reserve to get him through. OTOH, some of their stuff was remarkably goofy too. Like the Bren carrier and the PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank), a spring loaded anti-tank weapon.

Just some thoughts.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

oops, double posted

[JSDiamond]

No way.  A spring loaded anti-tank weapon?  Then again, considering the engineering under the hood of my '79 Jaguar XJ6L, I'm not surprised!  I have a story about a brake hose that's just... (sigh)

Those are all good suggestions.  I'm working on the updated version right now and I'll tweak the weapons a bit like you said.

[Mike Holmes]

A spring loaded anti-tank weapon?

Indeed. Remember that with AT rounds all you have to do is get them to the vehicle and they do all the work. So they don't really have to be rocket propelled. In any case, PIATs were pretty damn effective. See A Bridge Too Far at the part where the tanks are coming across the bridge at Arnhem to see one of these in action.

Anyhow, sorry to go off, but I rarely get to indulge in grognardy behavior here. Have you seen the Crocodile flamethrower version of the Churchill tank? With the trailer? Crazy Brits. :-)

Mike