Other RPG Systems

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Marc

As a GM I'm currently running Twilight:2000 (v2.2), Traveller: The New Era and GURPS. This last one for ancient, medieval or fantasy adventures or campaigns. I used to run (and I hope to run again in the future), Star Wars D6

And, as player, GURPS, Call of Cthulu and...I'm afraid I have been asimilated, too...D&D, D20.

I've been asimilated too... for now. I'm running D&D 4e. but with a decidedly AD&D/old style Gygaxian klunky feel to it. Main reason is because most of my players (who are also good friends in real life) are really into it. Surprisingly, it was the break I needed and it really served to give me a fresh perspective in GM-ing (or DM-ing, in D&D speak).

I also ran a Traveller free trader campaign set in the Spinward Marches in 1112. I planned to run it through to the convergence point between the classic traveller canon timeline and that of the Megatraveller timeline (the assassination of the Emperor and the resulting rebellion) but the campaign withered away after 3 months of intense gaming. I think it was GM burnout. I used Gurps 4e. Interstellar Wars as my rules platform but liberally cribbed stuff from all extant editions of Traveller (not to mention other SF rpgs including Star Frontiers).

I'm glad to see that lots of players in our forums are into Traveller too.

My Twilight 2015 game set with the Chinese incursion of Luzon sort of petered out too but not until the players made it past one of the last mechanized offensives which was stopped before it got to Clark AFB/Subic Bay. (GM burnout is a very common problem with me, but my friends are understanding) I also used Gurps 4e here.

I've recently revisited both versions 1 and 2 of Twilight and am falling in love with them again. I'm open to the idea of running another escape from Kalisz epic.

Amongst the other games i've had a chance to run or play in the past 5 years were Fading Suns and classic AD&D. I'm hoping my gaming life picks up a bit in the next few months as I may have to go on hiatus again when my wife gives birth to our second baby.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

My Twilight 2015 game set with the Chinese incursion of Luzon sort of petered out too but not until the players made it past one of the last mechanized offensives which was stopped before it got to Clark AFB/Subic Bay. (GM burnout is a very common problem with me, but my friends are understanding) I also used Gurps 4e here.

Ei Spielmesiter!
How about the GURPS 4ed in modern/futuristic setups? I was tempted to use GURPS 3rd edition to run a WWII mini-campaign and a short Traveller scenario, but I was afraid that the short turn time (1 sec.) would slow down too much the rhythm of a modern combat.
And, if you know the 3rd Edition of GURPS, what do you think about changing from GURPS 3rd Edition rules to the 4th edition ones? The change is worth the trouble?

[headquarters]

started out with those play by yourself books at the kitchen table when I was 8 or 9 ,scribbling away and furiously sipping my glass of milk .went on to to do some dnd ,but after I fell in with the general I was embroiled in several ADnD campaigns,tried my hand at Warhammer ,call of Cuthulu,ParaNoia,top Secret -in which I ran a merc campaign and secret agents of Edwardian Britain campaign ,and after that found Twilight and have stuck with it ever since ,albeit with detours into merc that have been fun .

Mostly as a player in other systems ,and mostly as a GM in the Twilight v.2.0 rules./merc setting .

Speaking of which -Friday this autumns FtF weekend kicks of -a typical -players poised to attack a vastly superior enemy,hounded by relentless super villains and plagued by internal strife -type of do.
Really looking forward to it !

[Mohoender]

I have tried several games (RPG and wargames) since 1981-1982.

For now, I'm working on T2K and often running Star Wars game, taking a lot of pleasure teaching my players that you can die while playing this game. Anyway they are in trouble as the Empire has won their last exchange and the New Republic might fall again.
I also had the highest casualty rate in Star Wars with 2 dead, 2 prisoners (awaiting execution) and 2 wounded out of a party of 7 (my players had blown up half of a city under them and put an imperial army on full alert in order to kill one single target ). That's what happen when you follow the diceased leasy hot headed. The three survivors were taken prisoners by pirates and they ended up in some bad situation.

As player I'm playing AD&D (one of my friend's version) but casualty rate is way too high. I was the sole survivor of the previous game (as my dwarf ran out in front of an army of demons; my fellow players died wandering while a dwarf was running so fast) and the last game ended with death for all of us: 5 to face 100 beasts in an open field is definitely not enough.. Don't bring Paladins with inlove magicians along.

[spielmeister]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I have tried several games (RPG and wargames) since 1981-1982.

For now, I'm working on T2K and often running Star Wars game, taking a lot of pleasure teaching my players that you can die while playing this game. Anyway they are in trouble as the Empire has won their last exchange and the New Republic might fall again.
I also had the highest casualty rate in Star Wars with 2 dead, 2 prisoners (awaiting execution) and 2 wounded out of a party of 7 (my players had blown up half of a city under them and put an imperial army on full alert in order to kill one single target ). That's what happen when you follow the diceased leasy hot headed. The three survivors were taken prisoners by pirates and they ended up in some bad situation.

As player I'm playing AD&D (one of my friend's version) but casualty rate is way too high. I was the sole survivor of the previous game (as my dwarf ran out in front of an army of demons; my fellow players died wandering while a dwarf was running so fast) and the last game ended with death for all of us: 5 to face 100 beasts in an open field is definitely not enough.. Don't bring Paladins with inlove magicians along.

Wow Mohoender, looks like you guys play/run lethal games judging from the bodycount. I should learn from you guys. I seem to be a bit too 'nice' to my players of late (not that anyone is complaining). But I notice that a reasonable degree of lethality always brings out the best in a player....

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

Wow Mohoender, looks like you guys play/run lethal games judging from the bodycount. I should learn from you guys. I seem to be a bit too 'nice' to my players of late (not that anyone is complaining). But I notice that a reasonable degree of lethality always brings out the best in a player....

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.

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. 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.

[Marc]

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.

The good balance... A key element in the secret formula of a good roleplaying session! It's a work for the GM to garantee the balance. But I agree in the fact that some set of rules are too lethal.

But, with time and observation, I have built for myself the opinion that the major cause of mortality in a group of playing characters is "the hero that is struggling to reach the surface" in every player. Some setups or games allow the hero in nearly all the ocasions. Others allow it only in a certain extent. Generally, the player with a fire weapon will always try to shoot. The player with a sword will always try to swing it against the enemy. In a combat, the player thinks that his/her character is loosing time if he is not killing anybody. Things like retreat, wait, cover, defensive actions, etc, are secondary or only take into consideration if can be doing while attaking. So, a lot of time the character is exposing himself to the enemy. And if the set of rules is lethal... Sometimes a little tuning time may be required in more lethal set of rules.

[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

Ei Spielmesiter!
How about the GURPS 4ed in modern/futuristic setups?

Hey Marc!

So far, since I got my Gurps 4e books and got the group to switch from 3e, we've only played twilight 2000 as a modern/futursitic set up. We also did a 3 month game set in ww2. It was set in the Eastern Front about August 1942, just in front of Stalingrad and the players were russians. Everyone in the group got hyped on this after seeing Enemy at the Gates and the russian tv series Strafbat (sp?). 4e held up reasonably well in both set ups.

Originally Posted by Marc

I was tempted to use GURPS 3rd edition to run a WWII mini-campaign and a short Traveller scenario, but I was afraid that the short turn time (1 sec.) would slow down too much the rhythm of a modern combat.

Yes, 3rd ed would be an excellent choice for a ww2 campaign (what theater of operations will you play in?) as well as Traveller. One thing going for you is the wealth of 3e ww2 sourcebooks out there (very informative stuff too, and great reading), as well as traveller 3e sourcebooks too. If you are not picky with the system (3e vs. 4e) 3e is good for traveller as 99% of gurps traveller sourcebooks are 3e and it does not look like they'll convert them to 4e. And the wealth of choices is staggering: mercenaries, naval action, merchants (ala firefly), exploration, skullduggery, you name it....

well, the 1 sec rounds put me off in the start but you learn to run with it. in my ww2 game, I even houseruled a 5 second and 10 second combat turn where people simplify their moves into 'long actions'. I borrowed these time frames loosely from the t2000 rules.

Originally Posted by Marc

And, if you know the 3rd Edition of GURPS, what do you think about changing from GURPS 3rd Edition rules to the 4th edition ones? The change is worth the trouble?

Well Marc, I've played both eds (3rd more extensively because I had it for a longer time). Changing over from the 3rd to 4th ed was a good shift all in all. Yes, it was worth the trouble (and the cost too- the books were rather pricey, ouch!). I was one of those buyers who got a bum set of the 4e players book (the spine was defective). Nice thing is SJG replaced it free of charge so in effect, i ended up with 2 4e players books on my shelf. Coming from a country where products liabilities laws are virtually not enforced, I found this a refreshing change, to say the least!

Although the mass of gurps sourcebooks are in 3e, the background info is still good and the conversion (if you really want to do it) is not difficult. Me, I'm rather rules light so I make more use of common sense and logic to make the changeover.

Off the top of my head, here are some changes from 3e:

1. Ranged combat: snap shot ratings have been dropped; ACC bonuses were generally lowered.

2. Ranged combat: auto wpns fire has been cleaned up. You now resolve autofire bursts with one 3d6 roll as opposed to burst group rolls in 3e. combat moves faster in this regard.

3. char gen: they put in talents and perks to up your skills.

I gotta run. Sorry if this is rather spotty, please feel free to PM me if you have any questions on gurps and I'll see what i can do to help you out.

cheers!

spielmeister

[Marc]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

Yes, 3rd ed would be an excellent choice for a ww2 campaign (what theater of operations will you play in?) as well as Traveller. One thing going for you is the wealth of 3e ww2 sourcebooks out there (very informative stuff too, and great reading), as well as traveller 3e sourcebooks too. If you are not picky with the system (3e vs. 4e) 3e is good for traveller as 99% of gurps traveller sourcebooks are 3e and it does not look like they'll convert them to 4e. And the wealth of choices is staggering: mercenaries, naval action, merchants (ala firefly), exploration, skullduggery, you name it....

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").


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!

[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.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by spielmeister

Well, the 1 sec rounds put me off in the start but you learn to run with it. in my ww2 game, I even houseruled a 5 second and 10 second combat turn where people simplify their moves into 'long actions'. I borrowed these time frames loosely from the t2000 rules.

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.

[Mohoender]

My advice on turn length (but that is only my little tiny opinion) is to do one thing at a time and forget about turn length. Just use it when the situation requires it.

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. Then, resolve side action after the main one (it helps). Use your descriptions and the nervous tension to make people forget about turn length. Anyway you cannot go with turn length. Even 10 seconds is too short when you have to manage a group of 6 taking different actions. I often saw PCs getting frustrated as the GM forgot or would neglect their action. Usually they were right as they would have saved the day. For my part, a turn ends when everyone has done something, as long as they don't go out of track of course. However, situations is the key, things will go faster in a plane or in an action involving an helicopter than when facing ground troops and vehicles.

You'll quickly feel if the way you manage things is good from the way your PC's react. The GM is all powerful, you can throw the rules in the trash and still play a game. Just don't forget that you have duties and not only rights.

Of course this is only an opinion.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

You'll quickly feel if the way you manage things is good from the way your PC's react. The GM is all powerful, you can throw the rules in the trash and still play a game. Just don't forget that you have duties and not only rights.

Of course this is only an opinion.

Great advice! I will folow it! Sometimes I think that I'm becoming to much methodical.

[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.

[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 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).