Other RPG Systems

[Targan]

Harnmaster/Gunmaster uses 10 second turns but alot can happen in a turn.

[headquarters]

more often than not I too find that in a game the players are the ones that make the desiscions that lead to PC fatalities.Stupid moves or facing overwhelming odds etc .

As you say -running away is what they think of last -and then its often too late .

I never make a "danger" that they cant get out of though -like a FAC team with a laser designator guiding prescison munitions down on them from 15000 feet without them knowing anything before it goes booom! Like in real life ,where artillery or air strikes occur that you cant defend against .

I find that the most rewarding thing is to present them with a choice -and then see what they gamble on .Of cours ethe choice needs to be a difficult one .."advance ,take th eposition and get the loot " or "run away and have your reputation in tatters"..hehe

The balance is difficult -but all important -I agree.

lastly I find that the players will tell you later that whenever they are struggeling to survive or the going is though will give a far better session for everybody than the ones where the riches pour in and the enemies are not that dangerous.

In other words - give them a position/status that they realize is valuable and than threathen it severly by for instance an advancing enemy force .If you want it more intense -hunt them like dogs ..

Also -if they are on the "last barricade" /back against the wall thats when team work and genuine joy for winning the fight is easiest to achieve .

Uncertainty and the percieved dangerous foe are the GMs best tools..

(imho - h meaning humble of course )

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

The problem is to reach the good balance. With AD&D the lethality is too high and doesn't help the game anymore. However, we make fun of the GM, pointing out that none of us ever saw the end of one his game.

Lol! Dunno if that's a compliment to the GM.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

For my part, I'm not all forgiving but the casualty rate of the Star wars game I sited was high. Nevertheless, it was justified. The team had to assassinate someone (an arm dealer) but, instead of entering the house and killing the guy, they chose to blow up the building (one of them bright idea) in the middle of an Imperial army base with a full navy group orbiting the planet. Saddly for them, the basement was full of explosives and the time on the charge they set up was too small (1 minute only) and they didn't have enough time to take cover (they let the bright guy do all the job ). In the game that ended with the Empire winning they put the mission on hold to save one of their comrade, they should have finished the mission first.

True. That approach is good as it keeps players focused. It's refreshing to see gamers playing both sides in the Star Wars millieu. Gives everyone a lot of opportunities for wheeling dealing and thuggery.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

As a result, they failed and the guy died anyway. If you forget to play with your brain you die. In T2K, that's even worse of course.

Always the best approach. Although deep inside no player really wants to have a character die, my group has matured a bit these days (or so i like to think!). a sort of its not whether you live or die but whether you played well and everyone had a great time. for some reason though, d&d4 brings out the power-gaming streak in them.

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Marc

Bon dia!

Ei Spielmeister! Thanks for yor extensive response!

I have one group of players that, for the moment, has always played with GURPS 3rd Edition (ups! and Star Wars D6, too). So, I think I will follow your suggestion and I will try to run a WWII campaign using GURPS. I will begin with a mini-campaign where the players are british paraglider infantry assaulting Pegasus Bridge (or similar) on D-Day. But with the "what-if" modification that everyting will go wrong on the beaches (I will introduce some new german weapons?) and they must fins a way to return home...("good luck, you're in your own, now").

Hey Marc,

Neat idea. Pegasus Bridge is really suitable for a party of player characters in Gurps ww2 3e. The what-if modification (alternate history!) adds a great touch. Gives it a very twilight-ish feel as well (good luck you're on your own now...). I won't be surprised if the surviving PCs from the group start picking up german small arms after the ammo runs out, driving frantically to the west in a captured kubelwagen.

Originally Posted by Marc

Another atractive idea is about a campaign were the characters begin as regular infantry in the british army, doing delaying actions while retreating towards Dunkirk. If everything goes well and they reach Great Britain, they will be transferred to tha "Commandos" to begin combat actions in Norway. And, to the end... Perhaps a little optimist, but a group of PC fighting and surviving the entire WWII would be great!

Now this is a foundation for a long-term campaign. In any case, it's a good foundation- a lot of chances for character evolution too. don't forget that as they move from one theatre to another, any unlucky PC can pick up a charcter disadvantage or three making his point total actually lower. I like this mechanic as it models the debilitative effects of stress and war on a character. Something like tom hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan. he seemed to have incurred a disadvantage like combat shakes or something like that.

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Marc

I was thinking the same. Longer turns to do longer actions. I suppose that it requires a little practice for the GM, to choose the moment to change from short 1 second turn length to the 10 second turn length. In fact the problem with the turn length always erupts when some of the players are fighting and the rest are doing something else. I'm afraid that is a typical GM problem that can only be solved with a little patience.

Yes Marc that's true. The 4e book talks about 'dropping in and out of combat time' but its up to the GM to smoothly implement this. I guess it really takes some getting used to on the part of both players and the GM. I could be wrong here but gurps seems to be the odd man out in terms of time frame allotment in combat insofar as rpgs are concerned. many i have seen seem to use 6 second or 10 second combat rounds.

a friend once played phoenix command sometime in the 90s and he said it also used something like the gurps 1 second turns (I could again be wrong here, its been sometime since that chat).

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

If your players don't act, then use it, it helps and takes all of its sense. No need to save a PC that is shaking in front of a tank doing nothing.

Yes this is very true. I remember having a player once in a gurps twilight game who would change his declared actions repeatedly in mid-sentence, delaying the game. I put a stop to it and ruled that his character was 'hesitating' and effectively doing nothing. Everyone played twilight 2000 1e in the group so they all understood and said that this was a logical way to model combat hesitation in gurps.

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Targan

Harnmaster/Gunmaster uses 10 second turns but alot can happen in a turn.

Targan, i forget but is 'gunmaster' a published set of rules? I googled it sometime back but could not find it (or maybe I flubbed roll on my computer skill).

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by headquarters

In other words - give them a position/status that they realize is valuable and than threathen it severly by for instance an advancing enemy force .If you want it more intense -hunt them like dogs ..

Also -if they are on the "last barricade" /back against the wall thats when team work and genuine joy for winning the fight is easiest to achieve .

HQ, I like the sound of that. Always the stuff of great games.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

Targan, i forget but is 'gunmaster' a published set of rules? I googled it sometime back but could not find it (or maybe I flubbed roll on my computer skill).

Extensively written and playtested house rules by Bill Gant (another lad from Perth, Western Australia and I would say I am his disciple ). You'd need one of the editions of Harnmaster to use Gunmaster. There are a number of versions of Gunmaster, one for each of the various editions of Harnmaster. You can download heaps of Gunmaster stuff at www.warflail.com . On top of that I converted both Cyberpunk 2020 and T2K to Gunmaster so you'd need my T2K conversion as well but I'd happily send it to anyone who wanted it.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

Yes this is very true. I remember having a player once in a gurps twilight game who would change his declared actions repeatedly in mid-sentence, delaying the game. I put a stop to it and ruled that his character was 'hesitating' and effectively doing nothing. Everyone played twilight 2000 1e in the group so they all understood and said that this was a logical way to model combat hesitation in gurps.

That's what the Combat Paralysis disadvantage is for

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Targan

Extensively written and playtested house rules by Bill Gant (another lad from Perth, Western Australia and I would say I am his disciple ). You'd need one of the editions of Harnmaster to use Gunmaster. There are a number of versions of Gunmaster, one for each of the various editions of Harnmaster. You can download heaps of Gunmaster stuff at www.warflail.com . On top of that I converted both Cyberpunk 2020 and T2K to Gunmaster so you'd need my T2K conversion as well but I'd happily send it to anyone who wanted it.

Thanks for the update. I'll check out the site.

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by copeab

That's what the Combat Paralysis disadvantage is for

very true, very true.