[Marc]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

You make the rule, we break it for you!

That's one of the true profits of a place like this forum.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not sure I like tying your "self control" skill to intelligence. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be more "realistic" for the more intelligent characters not to stick their heads out into incoming automatic fire?

Well, it seems the obvious choice if we wanted to incorporate Self-Control in the v2.2 rule set without many tricks. Probably, as Paul mentioned a few posts ago while talking about Small Arms, the choice to tie certain skills to certain characteristics is not one of the good points of this system. But once accepted (the alternative is choose a different set of rules), choosing Intelligence as the ruling characteristic for Self-Control was the logical step. Others systems, like GURPS, uses the Intelligence as a way to measure the determination and the conscious control of instinctive reactions. Traveller The New Era, with the same system of Twilight:2000, has the skill of Willpower, ruled by character's Intelligence, too. Its not perfect, but we could say that with more intelligence and more combat experience (Initiative), the character have more capacity to overcome to fear and do what he/she thinks must be done.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

How does it reflect the very low intelligence, low combat experience characters with more bravery than common sense or self preservation?

Certainly a self-destructive combination! Well, if they are NPC it would be some kind of reason to throw themselves into battle in that way. Drugs, a messianic leadership, state of shock, or a blind, furious an immediate retaliatory reaction against the characters, etc. The GM can play accordingly with the difficulty level of the Self-Control check to interpret these situations. Even a Novice (7 in Self-Control)character has good chances to pass an Average or Easy roll if something exists to justify the difficulty reduction. Of course, if the character for some reason(PC or NPC) is totally unworried about his/her physical integrity and will be playing accordingly until the final consequence, no roll is needed.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

How do you deal with the armchair soldiers who believe that just because they've seen movie action heros shrug off a dozen bullet wounds and keep going, they can do the same? Sure they might change their mind after the first round rips into them, but what if they get lucky and don't get wounded until say their tenth or even hundreth combat?

Well, if they get lucky and don't get wounded until the tenth or hundreth combat, they are not more "armchair soldiers", are they? Again I think that playing with the difficulty level of the roll, the GM can face all the problems.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

How would another character using Peruasion, or Leadership skill influence the "self control" roll?

Mmmm... that's a good question. First the character trying to influence must announce what skill would be using. Leadership for a quick, categorical order that will have immediate effect in the next turn. Persuasion for a more emphatic and long argumentation that will take effect after perhaps 1d6 turns. In any case, the success of the task implies the reduction of one difficulty level in the Self-Control task of the influenced character, an outstanding success meaning that no Self-Controlroll is needed to perform the risky action. That's always assuming that the player (if a PC)wants his/her character to perform the action. No roll for another PC or NPC can force a playing character to do something against his/her will.