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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. =)

MacLeod wrote:

~ 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. =)

Silicon wrote:
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.

Silicon wrote: Uhh, because it occurs  in the phase first?

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.

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.

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

MacLeod wrote:

Silicon wrote: 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.

Ron wrote:
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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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. =)

MacLeod wrote:
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!

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?

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!"

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

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.

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

Noclue wrote:
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!"

MacLeod wrote:

Silicon wrote: 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. =)

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

I will. Sounds good.

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...

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.

MacLeod wrote:

Silicon wrote: 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.

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": 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": 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. 

Simon wrote:
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": 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.

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).

Yes to all of it!

Player-created NPCs go all the way back to Twilight 2000 in the 80's; it had a special ability a player could take, that allowed you to declare that the random mook pointing a rifle at you was actually your old Army buddy or something. And of course loads and loads of new-style games do stuff like this, although for some reason I am blanking on a particularly good example.

Character rewards during free play: yes, but it has to be handled carefully. If you don't handle it carefully the game rapidly descends into "game the GM." Burning Wheel is a good example of a game that nuances roleplaying rewards interestingly and effectively via its Beliefs, Instincts and Traits. I recommend a close look at that, maybe in its Burning Empires form if you want to stay focused on sci-fi. Starblazer Adventures would be a good one to look at too.

I am loving the episode-structure idea.

'lil bit of crossposting from story games just to prove I'm not dead and the project's ongoing...

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

What I plan to make of it is that its not just a tacandslash RPG nor is it purely narrativist; its both.

I haven't been able to work on the project a while, since real life's been catching up. I'll be releasing an overhauled version with the roleplaying rules rather than jsut the combat engine in five days; I've got the ideas in my head and I just need to sit down one of these nights and write.

So far, here's the ideas I plan to implement;

Advanced Character Creation for Roleplay Campaigns (hereafter referred to as Series Campaigns) will involve a series of steps that illustrate the background and temperament of your character, above and beyond mere stats and skill ranks.

Proposed elements are: Background, Aspects, Development and finally Quirks.

Background involves the past life of the PC, drawn from either the player's own devices or from a random table depending on where in the game setting the PC came from.

Aspects involve the PC's temperament and attitude; there are three categories of Aspects; Positive, Neutral and Negative. Players choose two, neither of which can be from the same Aspect. Determines whether the character can be a hero, antihero or villain.

Development involves a motivation; why does the character do what she does? Again, this can be something of the player's own devising or randomly generated.

Quirks refer to the previously included random tables.

Collectively, these characteristics are known as Character Traits.

If you've read that part about EX abilities and stuff; those are going to tie directly into the system of Character Aspects. The Personality Quirks table is going to reinforce character creation and roleplay rather than being the locus of it.

Acting in accordance with your Character Traits may earn you the chance to take the story into different directions (which I will develop further in another post; let it be said that it involves something like "taking the reins" of the story) and earn you EX points and abilities for combat.

*whew!*

Despite thinking that the list offers somewhat dubious value, I've answered (or at least attempted to) the Power 19.

1.) What is your game about?

Cool mechs, sexy characters and the horrible things that happen to them in war.

2.) What do the characters do?

Fight in interesting ways, emote in interesting ways to fight better.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

Make decisions for their character, control that character in combat, roleplay as that character, have a hand in controlling the flow of RP sessions or Episodes

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Can't answer that. There's a setting though.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Invokes genre tropes to convey the feel of a mecha series. Otherwise, facilitates quick play for wargame battles using the engine.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

Uhh... RP well and play nice. And smart

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

Mechanical (pun intended) rewards.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

Everyone has a hand in the story. Except in combat results.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

Can't answer this now, but I'd like for players to be attached to their characters and perhaps even the NPCs - since lethality is high - but not too high that life is trivial. Quite the opposite.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

D6 target number stuff.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

Bullet dice. Genre trope integration.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters accrue EX Points that can be spent to provide combat boosts through roleplaying in accordance with their character traits. Gaining a certain number of EX Points results in character development which may change the character (storywise) and provide more EX skills or technological bonuses/allies (taking rein of the campaign)

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Key fact of mecha anime: Change or die. One dimensional characters (especially if they are on the good guys' side) never live long. aka the Kakizaki/Ben Dixon rule

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

No idea yet.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Combat results. Survival or not. Clash of rival forces. Relationship dynamics.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

Combat engine, plot development

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

Provides a simple-to-play mecha game while being crunchy (and shooty and swingy) enough for hack-and-slashers, provides the facilities for deep and immersive roleplaying.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

Free. But contributions (if it lasts that long or spreads that far) will be welcome.

19.) Who is your target audience?

Anime fans and video gamers who always thought "What would I do if I were in his place" or "What if the story went that way instead of that."

Hey everyone!

I'm alive, and still working on the actual RP parts of my RPG; I've completed a version of the advanced character generation rules for RP campaigns to be added to the previous ones.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tyidjwnmwjz/roleplay v.10b.rtf

I'm a bit stuck, since I can't think of a suitable mechanic to reward EX Points (if D&D had RP XP awarded based on completed encounters, what can I have) - the principle is to put the various character aspects of your character into practice in RP and combat, success in doing so gets you EX Points. Or something like that... Anyway, give the doc a read-through and tell me what you think!

In the meantime, I'll be revising the tactical combat system a bit.