Non fantasy Wraith Recon-esque.

[lastbesthope]

I was at the B5 day this weekend and mentioned to Matt that while I like WR I prefer SF to Fantasy, he has cryptically told me that there is something I should keep my eye out for next year. Matt has always said things like this to me, but in his defence he has always been right, so I wonder what will be like WR but not fantasy.

I thought he might be referring to the upcoming FC reprint of Corporation, but apparently he isn't, though he is being less than forthcoming about giving any more info. He is such a tease :lol:

LBH

 

[Greg Smith]

Wouldn't a non-fantasy version just be modern special forces?

 

[SnowDog]

Funny that you should mention this.

I just asked this a few days ago in a Finnish board asking if there is D&D 4e SciFi coming out. So far none has answered so I suppose there are no rumors circulating.

I got this idea of quite light hearted tactical roleplaying set in future by watching Doom the movie. While the movie was not the best of SciFi horror action it still gave me an idea to run something on those lines.

 

[lastbesthope]

Wouldn't a non-fantasy version just be modern special forces?

Well yes, but you say that like it's a bad thing :lol: I want a SpecFors RPG

Spycraft is a little too espionage based in the 2.0, though there were some good ordinary military and SpecFors supplements for SC 1.0

LBH

 

[Greg Smith]

So something like Recon, Delta Force, d20 Afghanistan, Commando, Behind Enemy Lines - Commando supplement (okay, the last two are WW2).

Oddly, warfare was never the most popular RPG genre.

 

[lastbesthope]

I'm always on the lookout for d20 Afghanistan, but Spycraft 1.0 with the Battlegrounds, Modern Arms Guide and World Militaries is a decent starting point in my collection.

Military might be why I like A:2089 so much. That and the setting.

LBH

 

[SnowDog]

Military games have few problems that make them sort of a niche games in RPG scene.

1) Without magic and/or high tech getting wounded is really bad news or then you can handwave the whole thing at the price of believability. Similar problem lies in character mortality rate because soldiers tend to get to sticky situations pretty often (at least in RPGs) maybe even more often than in average adventurer based RPGs.

2) Campaign structure. I have not read BSG RPG (I don't own it) and I don't yet have WR but so far I have not seen much of an advice how to run military campaigns. It is fun only so far to run pretty repetitive missions while soldiers (PCs) don't know much of the over all situation. Maybe some advice how to include PC/NPC interaction (other than combat) would help.

3) It is very hard on players to accept the fact that one of them is actually a leader while others follow his command :shock: I know that it is very hard for me to take orders from another player especially if he/she is a friend and we have been playing together for a long time. It is different when playing with strangers, strange enough.

4) I guess this sums up number 2 and 3. Most of the gamers have no f*cking idea about military life. So it is pretty hard to play accordingly. I (as well as most of my group) have the same limited experience that serving in FDF (Finnish Defense Force) provides. While compared to vets of Iraq or Afghanistan our experiences are almost zero it is still something and we know the basics. But still, it is much easier to run and play a game based on popular fiction than to a setting that has so many unknown and to some decree unpopular elements.

Personally I like to play military games but so far I have limited my own games to small scale merc jobs.

 

[lastbesthope]

YEah but military campaigns also allow you some flexibility, a PC gets injured, or killed, you get a new assignment to the squad, broadly same stat base to fill the specialisation, and when the injured character comes back into play they get reassigned.

I have been mulling over a way to play an all arms force akin to Halsey's Special Combat Group in A:2089 in such a way as that every player has a character to play nomatter which part of the group is in combat.

LBH

 

[SnowDog]

It's true that military setting offers certain benefits like you wrote. But that kind of benefit can also be a bit restricting. Let's say your machine gunner buys a farm. Then according to this logic your next character has to be machine gunner, too. I don't know about your group but what I have seen, people often change the character class/concept when they have to create a new character to get some variety.

Of course it is possible that there were not replacement machine gunners and the team got a sniper assigned instead...

But I agree, that a sort of troupe style campaign where each player had multiple characters (from infantry soldiers to fighter pilots) that are used when needed would be great fun to play and run.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Ooh, now that's a good idea. I always had concerns with the SST RPG regarding how to get around the issue of Player A wanting to be LAMI, Player B wants to be Military Intelligence.

 

[lastbesthope]

@Snow Dog, yes the PTB may not have the replacement troops you need. Flexibility if you want it, not if you don't.

@Chipmunk.

For example in A:2089 you h ave the following Commanders fo the various sections:

'Shotgun' Mike Halsey : Mek pilot and overall commander

Allison Philbrey : 2nd in command and general infantry scrapper
John Krater (Pilot): Transport & Logistics
Davie Carter : Anti-Mek operations
Isaac Jaice (Sniper) : Security of HQ and reserve infantry
Ivisha Anderson (Mek Pilot): Meks and Mek infantry co-ordination

Also you have a few associated commanders of attached air forces and special strike squadrons.

Make Halsey an NPC, give each PC one of the commanders and give each PC a character for each of the sections under the other commanders.

That way on ops, everyone will have a character to play nomatter which ubnit is in the thick of it.

LBH