RQ2 Modern

[Sorn]

Perhaps instead of introducing a new mechanic in specialization, you could use an already existing one - heroic abilities. Certainly this would work for combat styles in excess of 90%, or for a high athletics character to perform Parkour moves, etc. Extra CA's could be granted for sufficiently skilled characters as well.

I definitely like the idea of education tied to your background. Also ballistic shields as mobile cover. (see here for what they can protect against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_shield )

Armor should work like normal in RQ, why change it? It provides a certain AP of protection in the covered areas, if you roll very high damage then some of the bullet's energy got through to hurt you. If you roll (or choose) an uncovered location you hit somewhere the armor didn't protect. Give the bypass armor CM to AP rounds, or rifles, and that will cover hitting a weak spot where there is armor.

 

[Dan True]

Armor should work like normal in RQ, why change it? It provides a certain AP of protection in the covered areas, if you roll very high damage then some of the bullet's energy got through to hurt you. If you roll (or choose) an uncovered location you hit somewhere the armor didn't protect. Give the bypass armor CM to AP rounds, or rifles, and that will cover hitting a weak spot where there is armor.

We thought about this too... And it works as in normal RQ, with the addition that stopped rounds may stun you also - even if they did not penetrate. And this is because we want to model realistically what happens when you get hit by a bullet. Even if you're wearing bullet proof armour, the force of the bullet will most likely knock out all air in you - or maybe even numb a limb for a while.
But perhaps Stun Location is a bit too severe.

- Dan

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Though I still think 1d6+6 has some validity.... Will probably be decided by playtesting or mock battles.

1d6+6 means a minimum of 7pts damage if your hit, 2d6 means an average of 7pts. 7 pts of damage will generally be enough to cause a serious wound to an unarmoured normal person, so I guess the question is should being shot with a 9mm pistol always cause a serious wound or just usually cause one?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Re: Armour
I'd not create any "special rules" to apply bruising from bullets stopped by a bulletproof vest. If the damage is less than the Armour protection then the bruising is insignificant. If only 1 or 2 points of damage get through then this is the damage caused by the kinetic energy transferred through the armour.
I might make "Bypass Armour" a Crtitcal Only CM, and allow some form of "Stun Location" as a normal CM for firearms used against Bulletproof armour (so if you shoot someone who fails to find cover (Hit vs failed evade/parry) and the bullet is stopped by armour you can still have some effect

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Perhaps instead of introducing a new mechanic in specialization, you could use an already existing one - heroic abilities. Certainly this would work for combat styles in excess of 90%, or for a high athletics character to perform Parkour moves, etc. Extra CA's could be granted for sufficiently skilled characters as well.

This is OK where the specialisation is an "all or nothing" ability (either you have the handgun specialisation that gives you an extra CA or you don't) or one that allows you to use your existing skill in a way that you normally can't (If you have the "Programming" specialisation you can use "Computer Use" to (re)program computers, without it you can only run the software already installed).

It can sort of work for cancelling penalties for "specialised activities" - so if someone without the Parkour specialisation wants to use athletics to run up a wall they would be at -50%, someone with the specialisation uses base athletics (or -20% or some other different modifier...)

It gets much messier if these specialisations start becoming "new skills" (taking the parkour specialisation starts a new "parkour" skill at athletics (or atheltics -x%) but is then improved seperately as if it were an advanced skill).

MRQ cut back to a smaller set of skills than earlier versions/BRP and I think that mostly this is a good thing...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

a couple of suggestions:

1) Common skills

Suggest that Computer Use should not be a Common Skill in an RQ modern, rather an Advanced Skill that is gained by any character from a developed country (treat as a Lore skill) thru their cultural background

What do you want character generation to produce? If the normal situation is going to be characters from developed countries then it can be a common skill with a penalty applied to those from cultures where it is unavailable.

2) Education

I think how this is handled in a modern context is really important - in my experience lores and techs are an essential ingredient in shaping up a character. You might look at a (Common) skill for Education covering up to secondary school, with Lore or tech skills that represent higher learning and more specific subjects (nuclear physics, anthropology, electronics etc). But as with Computer Use, a character from a slum near Mombasa or the wilds of Borneo may not have even basic literacy - so once again I would err towards using an advanced skill and the cultural background table.

Alternatively Age of Treason introduces a SOC (Social Status) Characteristic. For a modern RQ I would look closely at the value of an EDU characteristic, with a score of 13+ representing various levels of higher education and being a component characteristic in any "academic" subject. It could be a core mechanism within the game.

Call of Cthulhu - (which grew out of RQ/BRP) uses an EDU characteristic, so it's use in a "RQ Modern" context is not unprecedented.
A common "Lore(Education)" skill makes sense though.
But also think about how you would use it in a game. Are you going to ask characters to roll for "standard secondary school knowledge", or just assume that they will know it. If the latter there is no point to the skill

 

[Mixster]

Re: Armour
I'd not create any "special rules" to apply bruising from bullets stopped by a bulletproof vest. If the damage is less than the Armour protection then the bruising is insignificant. If only 1 or 2 points of damage get through then this is the damage caused by the kinetic energy transferred through the armour.
I might make "Bypass Armour" a Crtitcal Only CM, and allow some form of "Stun Location" as a normal CM for firearms used against Bulletproof armour (so if you shoot someone who fails to find cover (Hit vs failed evade/parry) and the bullet is stopped by armour you can still have some effect

I like this sentiment, not too complicated. While still elegant enough to offer options.

Call of Cthulhu - (which grew out of RQ/BRP) uses an EDU characteristic, so it's use in a "RQ Modern" context is not unprecedented.
A common "Lore(Education)" skill makes sense though.
But also think about how you would use it in a game. Are you going to ask characters to roll for "standard secondary school knowledge", or just assume that they will know it. If the latter there is no point to the skill

This might be true, common sense should probably be something the players have, not their characters. If you lack common sense it's impossible to play a character that has it anyway.

This is OK where the specialisation is an "all or nothing" ability (either you have the handgun specialisation that gives you an extra CA or you don't) or one that allows you to use your existing skill in a way that you normally can't (If you have the "Programming" specialisation you can use "Computer Use" to (re)program computers, without it you can only run the software already installed).

It can sort of work for cancelling penalties for "specialised activities" - so if someone without the Parkour specialisation wants to use athletics to run up a wall they would be at -50%, someone with the specialisation uses base athletics (or -20% or some other different modifier...)

It gets much messier if these specialisations start becoming "new skills" (taking the parkour specialisation starts a new "parkour" skill at athletics (or atheltics -x%) but is then improved seperately as if it were an advanced skill).

I agree, heroic abilities are a good way to mimic them. But the skills should not become new skills in and on themselves, there is no need to overcomplicate, most of them are specialised bonus (+1 CA with one weapon in your weapon style, lesser penalty to parkour tricks), or they are new uses of an already existing skill.
However, since your should be able to create a character with these abilities from the get-go you should be able to buy them from freebie points as well as hero points.

I am considering something more (yeah I know I can't stop throwing ideas out there), what about flaws? If a player chooses, his character can have some disability or character flaw, that will give him more freebie points on character creation. I think this would be a great way of getting everybody to think about who their character is. And thus great for new players, while experienced players can skip it.

The problem with an EDU stat is that all the stats derive some basic characteristics (like CAs, Damage Modifier, HP and MP) and right now I can't think of what EDU should give. Also I'm not much for changing all that around.

Also, should we give more Freebie points to players to compensate for the greater number of skills needed, and to reflect the higher general education in a modern society. Like 400 freebie points instead of the 250?

Also there is the discussion whether we should give more Freebie points,

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I agree, heroic abilities are a good way to mimic them. But the skills should not become new skills in and on themselves, there is no need to overcomplicate, most of them are specialised bonus (+1 CA with one weapon in your weapon style, lesser penalty to parkour tricks), or they are new uses of an already existing skill.
However, since your should be able to create a character with these abilities from the get-go you should be able to buy them from freebie points as well as hero points.

That's good. (TBH, I am not not so keen on the using Hero Points to buy heroic abilities mechanism any way, so allowing them to be bought in a similar manner to new skills, though possibly with some prerequisites in terms of a minimum level of skill sounds fine.)

I am considering something more (yeah I know I can't stop throwing ideas out there), what about flaws? If a player chooses, his character can have some disability or character flaw, that will give him more freebie points on character creation. I think this would be a great way of getting everybody to think about who their character is. And thus great for new players, while experienced players can skip it.

The problem with Flaws is people either take flaws that will have a minimal effect on their character (in which case why bother with them - why not jsut give everyone more points to start with) or they take flaws that will allow them to "grab the spotlight" by making a big thing out of them (In which case they are already a "benefit", so why don't they "cost" points rather than "give" them.

Also, should we give more Freebie points to players to compensate for the greater number of skills needed, and to reflect the higher general education in a modern society. Like 400 freebie points instead of the 250?

The number of Freebie points will depend on the starting competance of characters that you want. If you have more skills you don't necessarily need to have more freebie points providing you have "reasonable" defaults. I think it will have to be a case of trying it out once you have a skill list and looking at the results. (Bearing in mind that different players will approach allocation of points differently. Some will allocate the maximum points to the minimum no of skills to make narrow specialists, others will spread the points across all, (or most) available skills, leaving them capable of trying most things, but rarely excelling. - Giving the former players twice as many points won't mean they reflect a high level of education across a broad spectrum of skills, they'll just be twice as accurate with a gun, or twice as stealthy...etc)

 

[GamingGlen]

Re: starting skill points
We're talking about late teenagers/young adults here. 250 points might be way more than they need or THINK they need. (I'm teasing today's youth who think they know everything). :lol:

Today's teenager probably does not know much more than ancient teenagers (can most of today's youth skin and cook an animal?). What they do know would be different, but not more; you might want to remove Ride as a common skill after 1920 or so, for instance. You might let them have more common skills than what is listed in the current rules to reflect a little more knowledge. For example, Mathematics, Lore (World), or Lore (Geography) might be common skills (except for Americans, of course ). Another option is to give more specified skills with the culture or profession options, especially for things like Languages.

As for what are common skills and what are advanced skills, you might have to create a few optional lists. For example, since we have been talking about "computer use", before 1980ish, perhaps 1990 could be the cut off date, it should be an advanced skill; for those wanting a run a campaign earlier (WW2, 1930s pulp, Victorian age) then it should not even be a skill option.

 

[SnowDog]

Full auto or bursts should work great at short distances, even then amount of ammo is the limit. Changing the mag should take some time (eject the mag, pick the mag from a pouch, insert the fresh mag and even cock the weapon again). This should make you think about using automatic fire.

Single shots should work better at longer ranges if you want to actually hit someone. If you just one suppress enemies, auto fire works well.

Sniper rifles, especially with scopes are far too unwieldy to be used in close ranges. Of course you can aim at the side of the rifle in an emergency but then it should be pretty desperate and with hefty penalty.

I would say that almost any firing should have a pontential of causing suppression. Autofire and explosives should work better, obviously.

There has already been good examples how combat should flow. I will add only fire and movement. That is, part of the team provides covering fire while other part advances (or retreats).

Maybe there should be a Sniping as an advanced skill?

@Make: The shotgun shells you were referring to (täyteiset) are called solid slugs.

 

[Mixster]

TBH, I am not not so keen on the using Hero Points to buy heroic abilities mechanism any way, so allowing them to be bought in a similar manner to new skills, though possibly with some prerequisites in terms of a minimum level of skill sounds fine.

Me neither, I'd really prefer hero points as just a way of surviving though situations. But I would do that as a DM anyway, so I don't think it's meaningful to write it into the rules.

The number of Freebie points will depend on the starting competance of characters that you want. If you have more skills you don't necessarily need to have more freebie points providing you have "reasonable" defaults. I think it will have to be a case of trying it out once you have a skill list and looking at the results. (Bearing in mind that different players will approach allocation of points differently. Some will allocate the maximum points to the minimum no of skills to make narrow specialists, others will spread the points across all, (or most) available skills, leaving them capable of trying most things, but rarely excelling. - Giving the former players twice as many points won't mean they reflect a high level of education across a broad spectrum of skills, they'll just be twice as accurate with a gun, or twice as stealthy...etc)

Reasonable points. I would still have a max of 30 points assigned to each stat. But I can see the problem.

The problem with Flaws is people either take flaws that will have a minimal effect on their character (in which case why bother with them - why not jsut give everyone more points to start with) or they take flaws that will allow them to "grab the spotlight" by making a big thing out of them (In which case they are already a "benefit", so why don't they "cost" points rather than "give" them.

I sort of disagree. The first thing is right, people take flaws which have a minimal effect on their character. But then it creates a character with good and bad sides, which seems much more realistic to me.
The second thing I don't agree on, players taht "grab the spotlight" are prima donna players, and should be dealt with by the group or the DM. They will do so with flaws or without, flaws might enable them to do so, but a proper group should handle that.

Today's teenager probably does not know much more than ancient teenagers (can most of today's youth skin and cook an animal?). What they do know would be different, but not more; you might want to remove Ride as a common skill after 1920 or so, for instance. You might let them have more common skills than what is listed in the current rules to reflect a little more knowledge. For example, Mathematics, Lore (World), or Lore (Geography) might be common skills (except for Americans, of course Razz ). Another option is to give more specified skills with the culture or profession options, especially for things like Languages.

Can most of the youth in the medieval times skin and cook an animal?
I agree that horseback riding should be advanced after around 1920, but that's about the time where bicycles enter the picture, and thus you could have ride (bicycle) around this time. This skill would off course also cover motorcycles etc.
I'm opposed to giving specialised skills. Making more skills doesn't make the world seem much more generally educated, just more specialised, and I don't think modern man is more specialised than ancient man.

The problem with your statement, "how many of todays youth know how to skin and cook an animal?" is that most modern men have a general idea of what to do. In medieval times, you would probably have done it a few times and know how to do, or not know it at all. It was a very binary education, todays education is much more varied, and thus reflects a world with a broader skill range.

As for what are common skills and what are advanced skills, you might have to create a few optional lists. For example, since we have been talking about "computer use", before 1980ish, perhaps 1990 could be the cut off date, it should be an advanced skill; for those wanting a run a campaign earlier (WW2, 1930s pulp, Victorian age) then it should not even be a skill option.

Great idea! Looking through a copy of Cthulhu, they had different character sheets for different periods of time, this is a great idea.

Full auto or bursts should work great at short distances, even then amount of ammo is the limit. Changing the mag should take some time (eject the mag, pick the mag from a pouch, insert the fresh mag and even cock the weapon again). This should make you think about using automatic fire.

How about 3 CA? One to eject the mag, one to switch it with a new one and one to load the new one? Ammo bags could reduce this time by 1 CA.

Sniper rifles, especially with scopes are far too unwieldy to be used in close ranges. Of course you can aim at the side of the rifle in an emergency but then it should be pretty desperate and with hefty penalty.

How would you mimic the emergency status of sniper rifles the best? Perhaps give it a penalty to hit when not using a gun-rest, and having it require higher strength to use.

Maybe there should be a Sniping as an advanced skill?

Being a combination of Combat Style (Rifle) and Stealth? Or what should it do specifically.

Also what if specialising (now a coined term) with a sniper rifle didn't give an extra CA, but instead doubled your crititcal chance. So instead of just critting on 10% you'd do it on 20% of your skill?

 

[SnowDog]

About reloading: In reality changing mags takes quite a bit of time, at least in my experience. That's why in fixed position mags are sometimes placed to ground so they are quicker to pick up than from an ammo pouch.

Maybe 3 ACs is enough at least as a starting point.

Sniper rifle in close combat: I would use hip firing penalty, to whatever it will be set. Maybe even slap -5 or -10 on top because those are not designed for close work. The hip firing penalty is from not being able to use sights against close fast moving targets.

I don't think that sniper rifle needs any more strength to use than other rifles. Although sniping is usually done using weapon rest and bipods sometimes it is not possible or even the best option. Then shooting is done from a special sitting position. There are some standing positions as well even though all of these are less stable than using bipods.

Sniping skill: I was aiming (no pun intended) to use it as a skill that helps with shots to long ranges that are beyound shots done using normal riflemen. This could also be done to help with precision shooting to about 400 meters.

Disclaimer: I am not a trained sniper, I have just served my normal time in Finland's Defence Forces plus I have read quite a bit about the subject So take everything with a grain of salt

 

[Mixster]

About reloading: In reality changing mags takes quite a bit of time, at least in my experience. That's why in fixed position mags are sometimes placed to ground so they are quicker to pick up than from an ammo pouch.

Maybe 3 ACs is enough at least as a starting point.

A point I was thinking about, reloading an Arbalest is 4Ca, if that thing requires a winding mechanism, I'd assume it would require much more time than just changing a magazine.

Sniper rifle in close combat: I would use hip firing penalty, to whatever it will be set. Maybe even slap -5 or -10 on top because those are not designed for close work. The hip firing penalty is from not being able to use sights against close fast moving targets.

I don't think that sniper rifle needs any more strength to use than other rifles. Although sniping is usually done using weapon rest and bipods sometimes it is not possible or even the best option. Then shooting is done from a special sitting position. There are some standing positions as well even though all of these are less stable than using bipods.

Yeah, hip firing. Well how about it halving your combat style?

Hmm, ok, so perhaps a penalty to using a telescopic sight at short ranges? Something like it has a short range which is like 50 meters where you can only hip shoot with it?

Sniping skill: I was aiming (no pun intended) to use it as a skill that helps with shots to long ranges that are beyound shots done using normal riflemen. This could also be done to help with precision shooting to about 400 meters.

Disclaimer: I am not a trained sniper, I have just served my normal time in Finland's Defence Forces plus I have read quite a bit about the subject So take everything with a grain of salt

I like this option. But thinking with the notion of not creating too many skills, could specialising in a sniper rifle increase the range by half again?

 

[SnowDog]

In that case 3 ACs should be fine for reloading. This should create situations where reloading really is a bum and it becomes part of your tactics that you have to take into account in your plans...

In reality telescopic sights are adjusted based on the body proportions of the shooter, range, weather and even ammo (could be even moore variables). So, if the telescope is set to 300 meters, it is pretty impossible to use to 50 meters The magnification would be huge. But that is too much details to a generic modern RPG that doesn't try to be a military simulation game But I would think that those powerful sniper rifle scopes should have a minimum range where they can be used.

Maybe the hip firing could halve the combat style. Or give -30 and disallow any bonuses from the rifle and scope.

Specialisation could work or just use Sniper rifle weapon style that could be used for for single shots with rifles at about half value. After all, snipers just specialize to sniping and before attending the sniping school they must be pretty good marksmen among other things.

Still, most of the so called snipers are not really snipers at all. In best of cases they are marksmen, above average shooters. Others just take shots of opportunity (like real snipers of course) but without too much training or even experience. And those are done using normal rifle caliber ammo. Any extreme range shooting, like up to 1 km (or beyound) is done using anti materiel rifles like .50 cal rifles.

You are of course right that too many skills is not the way to go.

 

[Mixster]

How about sniper rifles don't do a lot more damage than a regular rifle, but even at high ranges they give so many bonuses on to hit that they are much more prone to cause a critical effect, which can give you either bypass armour or maximise damage. That way, a sniper wouldn't be effective for hip shooting or such things, but would be tremendously useful when aiming. Scopes could double or triple the bonus from aiming, and snipers could due to recoil be unhandy when attempting to fire multiple shots at once.

Shotguns could be the exact opposite, loads of damage, but little chance of causing criticals, meaning armour has more merit against it, and choosing location would be a rarer choice.

We did discuss giving shotguns a spread effect, were if you hit the arm, you'd also hit the torso, but after reading through Wikipedia, it seemed that a shotgun on an effective range of 70m, only had 10cm spread. Which probably wouldn't be enough to warrant a two location hit.

 

[SnowDog]

The damage, of course, depends on the caliber of the rifle. Most of the rifles use same calibers as other rifles, like 7.62x51 mm NATO. There are other rifle caliber, too. So, they shouldn't cause more damage than other rifles with the same caliber.

On the other hand there are so-called antimateriel rifles with calibers like .50 (Barrett) that can reach out and touch someone to a pretty far away where normal sniper rifles can't. Those rifles also pack so much punch that they are used to destroy combat materiel that are hard to damage with smaller caliber rifles.

So, I would say that the benefit of scoped sniper rifle comes from increased chance of hitting someone pretty much where intended provided there has been aiming actions. Sometimes quite quick shots are also done but those are obviously not as accurate. Sniper rifles are also more accurate than the bulk assault rifles but I don't know how much more accurate in game terms.

About shotguns. I was trying to create accurate shotgun rules for another game (Millennium's End) way back and did some reserch. Yes, shotgun pellets spread in range and at some point it is possible that only on pellet hits. How many pellets there are depends on shotgun (like 10 or12 gauge shotgun), what load is used (buckshot, birdshot = size of the pellet). The size and spread of pellets depends on choke (if any) of the shotgun and how long the barrel is Again, lots of variables that might not be all that important in the game. I think it is wise to focus on one or two basic shotguns but also consider how it will scale with optional and more detailed rules.

 

[Mixster]

So if a scope gave negative penalties, and didn't allow aiming at short ranges, but increased the range, and gave double or triple the normal bonus for aiming. Then sniper rifles would rely on you aiming more than just firing quick shots.

But off course only if the rifle and the scope has been set with eachother. Which I guess takes like 10 or so shots and an hours work? Perhaps an easy combat style test to align them properly?

So lets talk shotgun range. What if we say that shotgun can fire at quadruple normal range at a quarter of the normal combat style? Then we could set the shotgun range low, like 25~50 meters. And it would still be able to be used at range, just be terribly inaccurate.

Would bleed be appropriate for a shotgun, I'd imagine getting hit by loads of pellets would make you bleed pretty heavily.

Apart from that I'd think CMs would be dependant on ammunition, some bullets are hard to get out of the wound, so I'd think Impale would be good.

So, at the moment I'm working with D12s for Calibers above 7.65, D10s for 5.56 to 7.65, D8s For weapons up to 5.56; D6 for 9mm, and D4s for calibers smaller than that.
What do you think of that, I'm thinking 2 of the respective type of dice for each, and then some could add a bonus. 2d4 would cause a serious wound to an arm in one shot, and a torso in two shots, while more than that would cause serious wound anywhere at instant. Greater than 5.56 would almost be a critical wound all the time.