That also bugged me endlessly and it's extremely unrealistic especially for European native who underwent compulsory language trainings in multiple languages during school and thus usually remembered a couple of words, but wouldn't be native in any language but their own.

Hence we extended the rules on languages and all characters speak their native tongue plus some English or Russian (as per the rules) and then 1 additional language per level in Intelligence above D. This is meant to reflect school education and proficiency in these languages is meant to be on a "working" level.

More on Languages
 

Raellus - I think this is a good, simple way of resolving communications, and it fits with the RaW pretty well (esp the emphasis on bonus / penalties). I may still tweak my character creation a bit, since I'm house ruling a set of 'points' for players to fudge a dice roll or start with additional equipment, and I might figure out how to add language to that list as well.

Ursus - I agree that the character creation rules don't deal with school based training realistically (at least as I understand them). I can say that US based language training is pretty crappy unless you live in an area where you need to exist bilingually.

Scout Specialization
 

Mucked around with character creation some with 2 players who'll be in my upcoming campaign, and I noticed that "Scout" is not available as a specialization in any Military career - it's only available to Police, Criminal, and Intelligence career paths. This seems 'off' to me, I think it should at least be available in the Military : At War path.

Thoughts?

Recon RETCON
 

That omission seems odd. Scout isn't even a specialty listed under the Operator archetype, which doesn't make sense because the raison d'etre of many special operations forces is long-range reconnaissance (i.e. scouting). IMHO, there's a much stronger case for military characters to have Scout as a specialty than for criminals and law enforcement characters.

For Archetype PCs, there's nothing in the rules that says players can't select Scout as a specialty, although it's not listed under the "recommended options".

As for Lifepath PCs, as a Ref I would house rule that Scout is an available selection for "operators" and "grunts", if not all military builds.

-

I think you're running into the limitations of a lifepath system built on a very small number of d6 tables.

- C.

I think that is probably true. I wouldn't mind changing them to d8 tables - I started but never finished

If FL aims at further developing that product line - of which I'm not certain, as I see more of a broad and less a deep approach in their product line - I'd wish fore a refurbishment of their character generation. Something that gives us more options and wider tables.

Oracle Question
 

I'm not mathematically minded so when questions of probability come up, I lack confidence, and fear making the wrong call.

Should I shuffle the deck of playing cards I use for an "Oracle" for my solo campaign after each draw, or should I run through the entire deck before reshuffling?

If I was only drawing to ask Yes/No questions, or determine if something was Helpful or Hazardous, then running through the entire deck would guarantee a 50-50 split across 52 draws, and that doesn't seem particularly realistic. But then what about the law of averages?

I'm drawing from the same deck when using the other tables (NPC Motivations, Settlement Problem and Attitude, and Further Elements) in the solo rules as well, so that complicates the Yes/No & Helpful/Hazardous probability issue.

I hope this question makes sense. As I said before, my number sense is not very good.

-

I'd argue that guaranteeing a 50/50 ye/no outcome over 52 draws was Ok.

Perhaps flip a coin for yes/nos to remove the cards issue?

Thinking about this more, and something i haven't done myself but am now thinking i might do it for my own solo campaign. I'm considering shuffling the random encounter deck after each encounter.

Why? Because who says you can't run into back to back military patrols? Or civilian hunters? Or bad weather over two consecutive days? In fact i'd argue this makes more sense not to remove the card, not less. Further, if you have an encounter and put the card aside - then you know you won't have to deal with that "encounter issue" again, which removes from the game.

So while i have not answered your question, i think i am going to shuffle the random encounter deck and improve my game because of it.

Modifying Skill Rolls?
 

Here's a brief scenario. The PCs are planning to ambush an enemy convoy. Since it's a "group ambush" (technically, it's waylaying), I have to roll an opposed Recon check for the PC with the lowest Recon score. That PC does not have the Recon skill (F?). For skill rolls involving Recon, this PC can only roll their attribute base die which, in this case, is C. The whole party spends a shift preparing to waylay the convoy, earning a +3 modifier to the Recon roll.

In this scenario, how do I step up the base die? There's only one base die to start off with- the Attribute. The rules instruct players to balance their die whenever adding or subtracting modifiers.

Do I:

Step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), and B to A (+2) then stop, as there's no second base die (the non-existent skill) to step up?

OR

Do I step up the Attribute base die from C to B (+1). Then step up the Skill base die from F (non-existent) to D (+2), then raise it again to C (+3), so that the two base dice are close to balanced?

OR

Do I step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), then step it up again to A (+2) and then raise the skill F to D (+3)?

-

This is the way I'd go, I haven't looked in the rules to support it but it matches the balancing scheme I remember. I would play it that if you only have a single dice the first +1 always adds in a second die.

The "Modifiers" section on pages 45-46 has what you need, but it's obfuscated (see below):

Italicized and bolded for emphasis. The italicized paragraph is where the order of operations is scripted. The bolded sentence is the key to this scenario, and I'm particularly wroth with Free League over it because of what I consider a very poor layout choice here. They put that sentence by itself on the backside of page 45, so in both PDF and print versions, it's not visible on the same spread as the rest of this section.

- C.

NPC Skills (Or Lack Thereof)
 

Thanks, Teg. I thought I remembered seeing something like that. The seeming finality of the explanation on p.45 fooled me into not reading beyond it to the next page.

On a different topic, I think the Typical NPCs table on p. 37 of the Ref's Manual is a bit lacking. For example, my PCs have been running into enemy vehicle crews from time to time. The stat blocks from said table that would fit an enemy vehicle crewman are Soviet (or Polish) Soldier. That template lacks basic skills that even a rookie vehicle crew would have. A BTR gunner should have at least a modicum of Heavy Weapons skill but the standard stat block for Soviet Soldier (the closest thing on the list to a BTR gunner) doesn't even mention it.

If I stick to the rules, as written, I can only roll one base die for the NPC's relevant attribute. So, in the case of the hypothetical BTR gunner, he starts with only a d10 (for STR B) before adding or subtracting applicable modifiers. Enemy NPCs that only roll one die definitely give my PCs an advantage, so I'm not complaining too much. It does seem unrealistic and more than a tad unfair, though- I almost feel like I am cheating when I roll that single die for the bad guy.

I've played by the book (and it almost always works to my PCs' benefit). I've also experimented by simply adding a key skill that a trained, experienced soldier would have at level C. In the example of my hypothetical BTR gunner, that would mean adding a D8 for Heavy Weapons to the D10 die for STR attribute. Instead of adding a new skill, I've also just swapped out for a skill on the list (in this case, swapping Ranged Combat C for Heavy Weapons C). That feels more realistic, and fair, but it also puts enemy NPCs almost on par with PCs and I'm not sure I like that very much either. The PCs are, after all, the "stars of the show", and I've invested a lot more time and thought into them than I have some nameless OPFOR in a random combat encounter. I'm torn.

How do you (any of you) handle the somewhat vanilla, one-size-fits-all enemy NPCs of the base rules?

-

Mike Verkuilen's excellent Soldiers, Farms, and Refugees supplement in the Free League Workshop has really useful guidelines with four power levels. Each increase in power adds more attribute increases, skills, and specialties.

So you could have low-level foot infantry be CCDD with Ranged Combat C and Recon C. Vehicle crews might be CCDD with Heavy Weapons C, Ranged Combat D, and Drive D.

But his supplement is fantastic and is a must-buy in my opinion.

I agree with your thoughts Raellus. I've been using the NPCs as per the book also.

• The enemy in my game normally numerically outnumbers my good guys, so the NPCs having lower dice hasn't been as much of an issue.
• I think initiative counts a lot. My PC normally has higher initiative, i use a home brew method though that includes the PC CUF, weapon type (pistol, SMG, LMG modifier) plus a die roll. Again, my PC normally gets first go, so another advantage to off set their numbers.
• My early combat was two sides blasting at one another, over time more decision making has crept in which your game seems to already have - does a PC fire? Or take cover? If your NPC has higher stats which does feel more realistic, your PCs may also have to take cover more. Or take more snap shots (quick shot followed by taking cover).
• The biggest advantage my PC has had, is normally my higher recon for example means i can pick and choose which encounter i engage or avoid. So NPC values may not even come into play.

It may not sound like i'm answering your question. But what i mean is, higher NPC stats does feel more realistic and it may also mean more PC life loss. But there are other decisions or factors that also impact PC life loss or saving.

I'm still struggling for balance.

Also, war isn't fair. My APC was driving down the road the other day, failed his recon roll, and suddenly the enemy had surprise and initiative and my APC is coming down the middle of the road. As a player what can i do? An APC driving down the road is normal, not a risky decision. Yet now the enemy had the drop, oh, and an RPG!!!

Perhaps what i'm saying is. If your PCs are in enough fire fights. Even against NPCs with low dice levels. Eventually, even in spite of good decision making, statistically your PCs will take some losses. Which is why in movies (saving private ryan, platoon, real life ...) when PCs last the full term of war/movie/enlistment and leave alive ........ it is such a relief.

I think it's important to remember that the book NPCs are standard and representative of the most common opponents encountered - infantry. It's not saying "all orcs have these stats." For vehicle crews, my solution has been to give them Heavy Weapons and Driving equivalent to the printed Ranged Combat, then drop Ranged Combat by one step.

Something I've seen is that the most important enemy trait in determining relative threat is Coolness Under Fire. My players aren't afraid to establish belt-fed dominance early, and a suppressed NPC is one who isn't shooting back.

- C.

I agree, KC. Roll the dice enough times and, even with a couple of advantages, the odds are going to catch up and bite PCs. I recently found this out the hard way (see https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....5391#post95391).

That's more or less what I've been doing. I just wanted to see if that jibed with how other Ref's were approaching OPFOR NPCs. Great minds and all!

Thanks, Higgs. I'll check it out.

-

Social conflict question.
Person A is trying to convince Person B of something, A outranks B.
Does person A get a +1 to convince them (I say yes).

Real question though, does Person B get a -1 to their own roll since they are outranked? If so, by outranking someone you get a +1 for your own roll and impact them with a -1 for their roll - ie you get two benefits. Is this right or does only one modifier apply?

I'm pretty sure the modifiers are only applied to the PC's roll. I'm basing this on conclusion on this line in the Social Conflict rules, which precedes the modifier lists, both positive and negative, on p. 61 of the PM:

"Each of the following factors modifies your roll by..." (emphasis added)

It doesn't mention anything about applying modifiers to the opposing party's roll.

-

Scavenging Vehicle Parts?
 

It seems like a skilled mechanic should be able to scavenge at least some usable part(s) in less than 5 hours.

From the Players Manual, p. 86:

SCAVENGING PARTS
If you spend a shift scavenging parts from a functional or inoperable vehicle and make a TECH roll, you can find a number of vehicle spare parts equal to the number of you roll. If the vehicle you scavenge is permanently destroyed, you can still scavenge it, but you’ll find one less spare part, meaning you’ll need to roll at least two to find a single usable part. The vehicle you scavenge is permanently destroyed in the process, and can never be scavenged again, even by another person.

I suppose that I could apply the Quick Search rule (sidebar, p. 143), but that seems a little too generous, as it doesn't require a character to make a skill roll. As someone with minimal knowledge of auto mechanics, I would have little to no idea what component I should pull from an APC or what have you.

It seems like there should be a middle ground (between 5 hours minimum and unskilled scroungers spending much less time and essentially getting a freebie).

Is it time to house rule this, or am I missing something?

-

I do not understand the time needed to strip some useful stuff off a vehicle. IT would only take a couple of hours to grab some of the more common and easy-to-grab things that are good like wire and other easy-to-pull things. I can understand 5 or so hours to strip down a vehicle totally down to the frame. And the amount of just basic parts is very low in my idea. If you are striving for a car that is running you should get more than 4 parts at max along with some electrical parts also and a few general since there are all kinds of things you can get from a car. I also ran a 2d6 for different parts if the ride was good. IF it has been worked over then the rule for just a couple of things makes sense.