"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.

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).

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

oops, double posted

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.

JSDiamond wrote: A spring loaded anti-tank weapon?