Players and Equipment

[Targan]

I say don't restrict your players with regards to the gear their characters can buy with their starting allowances. T2K is a learning experience. Let them learn how heartbreaking it is when they have to stash or abandon heaps of their gear because they run out of fuel to run the vehicles they carry all their stuff in.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by Targan

I say don't restrict your players with regards to the gear their characters can buy with their starting allowances. T2K is a learning experience. Let them learn how heartbreaking it is when they have to stash or abandon heaps of their gear because they run out of fuel to run the vehicles they carry all their stuff in.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

I agree that players start with way too much money - we had players struggling to spend their cash. We found that it took away from the survival feeling so we actually agreed to restart the campaign with less equipment.

We did 2 things.
1. rework how much stuff players can start with according to some house rules (equipment dice are used instead - from tw2k13 - and money is 1/10th the core game):
http://sites.google.com/site/leonpoi...edirects=0&d=1

2. not give players full fuel - (ethanol). I don't normally give them full ammo, especially large calibre (which I normally give them none - but they can buy it themselves) - these changes are also included in the document in the link above

We now come to the problem of characters hoarding dozens of ak74s from fallen enemies to barter with. Weight stops a lot of that. I also have barter value attached to Availability (the core rules actually already has this so does several modules).

Thanks for the suggestions and links. 10% of starting cash is extremely harsh but will definitely add to the survival feel!

There is no solution to PC’s scavenging the dead and recovering weapons and ammo. It's generalising but if the PCs are going to feel threatened then the enemy has to be at least equally equipped as they are and so, assuming that they win a firefight and are able to be able to recover weapons that are comparable to their own with some ammo.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I struggle with the same thing. Even when I create conditions that I think will lead to the abandonment of captured gear, my players still manage to keep most of it. Their efforts have gone a long way to equipping a friendly local militia.

I think that this is the key with captured weapons and ammo – either give the PCs someone to donate it to or make it difficult logistically to recover/transport it all!

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I think the main problem is that the basic books simply don't have enough variety of things to spend the chracters allocation on and so players are left witht he choice of "do we buy another half dozen TOW missiles, or a ground surveillance radar?"

Encourage players to use their imagination and the various websites around the place to come up with new and interesting ways to seperate them from their cash. Pauls site is an absolute goldmine, particularly the equipment section, when you're trying to spend money. Food, lubricants, radios, medical equipment, etc, etc, etc all adds up very fast.

One thing I would avoid though is letting characters spend more than 10% of their allowance on tradables - gold, ciggarettes, booze, underwear (you'd be amazed at what some people come up with). Anything easily convertible and lightweight should definately be restricted!

The problems I’ve encountered with starting character’s cash are all from campaigns I set up and ran a number of years ago when I was just using the basic rulebook plus supplements. Paul’s fantastic site and general internet searches do alleviate this problem to some extent as the moment you start getting detailed on equipment it’s easy to spend more than the basic rules suggest on items.

However I have just created a new character for an online game (hellbent4’s Angels of the Apocalypse on RPOL) and the only reason I managed to spend his $20k starting cash was because I bought an ATV and trailer for $11.3k. Had I started with a free vehicle then I probably wouldn't have been able to transport all of the equipment I would have been able to buy. Now this campaign is a static one essentially involving returning "civilisation" to Vancouver so the PCs have a base and the equipment my character has isn't going to be an issue but this process did highlight to me that even with Paul's site the amount of equipment you start with (according to the rules) is still a problem in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Sometimes the loss of a character or two is acceptable when recovering a vehicle. A LAV-25 for example carries more firepower than the entire crew inside (unless they're all armed with machineguns and rocket launchers). Add in all the nice bulky equipment the group has and the extremely limited amount of space leg mobile PCs have for trade goods and it becomes a bit of a no-brainer. And it's not just equipment and firepower those vehicles are carrying. What about wounded PCs who are unable to walk? Do you leave them behind or attempt to carry them on other PC backs thereby sacrificing even more vital survival equipment?

Somehow I knew that you’d say that! <G>

While there are undoubtedly occasions when it is worth the risk of casualties to recover a vehicle I personally believe that players get fixated over equipment and throw lives away unrealistically. Personally I don’t think that the ability to transport bulky equipment or trade goods is a good enough reason to accept casualties while recovering a vehicle. I also suspect that if you were to ask a wounded person whether loosing one or two of their comrades was acceptable in order to recover a vehicle to transport them, then they might not want you to take the risk!

What we’re talking about here though is whether the risk of casualties justifies an attempt to recover a vehicle and that really has to be judged on a case by case basis. My point simply is that some players over value vehicles and that that is partly because the character generation system allows them to buy a significant amount of gear which, once they “own” it, they feel the need to keep possession of, resulting in a desire to keep every possible vehicle even when attempting to do so leads to loss of life.

Originally Posted by Matt W

3. How realistically are you going to run combat? I don't remember the exact statistics, but - in real world - it's considered impressive if it only takes one magazine's worth of ammo to kill one opponent. Most shots are merely in the general direction of the enemy (in combat, most people prefer to be behind cover and not be easily visible)

4. Do you have the enemy use weapons/tactics effectively? Hit their vehicle/trailer with an RPG round? Ambush them with a concealed Heavy Machine Gun?

Originally Posted by leonpoi

I think the standard rules pretty well take care of this.

A 150m engagement is long range for most assault rifles which in (2.2) is 1/4 skill. Lets be generous and assume they have an asset from 11-15, i.e. they hit on a 3.

Assume 2 hits needed to take someone out. Assuming 2 hits needed to take someone out, also assuming that the enemy is prone (hits on head, arms or chest only) and you get 33 shots needed to take someone out on average, if I got my maths right . (20/3*2/0.4 = 33).

At least in our game the medium MG is always running low. He goes through 60-150 rounds an engagement. 5.56N for their assault rifles they have plenty of but the 7.62N is in short supply. I'll put them against a "Jeep" with a PK soon so that he has another option for his autogun skill.

I think that there is a tendency in all RPGs that involve firearms to have engagements with the enemy at too short a range. Inexperienced PCs are used to high probabilities of successful attacks and so frequently attempt to close to a range where they have a high chance of hitting.

I personally try to keep ranges to a more realistic distance and find that having lots of missing rounds adds to the atmosphere. Players like to be successful though so playing through a firefight at 150m as described above, though more realistic in terms of ammo expenditure, is likely to be frustrating to play through and after missing several times one player or other is going to try to close the distance to improve their chance of hitting.

[copeab]

I'd be tempted to say "You can have any gear you want, provided the total weight is no more than 35+1d10 kg. And you have to select gear while seated in different rooms; no collaboration. You don't start with any vehicles."

[WallShadow]

All these ideas about limiting PC's equipment struck a chord with my evil side--

Let the players have their full allotment of equipment, ammo, and/or gold.
Have them have it loaded it up on their vehicles by some grunts, encouraging the players to spread your team's well-marked belongings among several vehicles to prevent one person's stuff getting completely wiped out if the carrying vehicle is destroyed. "Gee, sir, this truck was bottoming out. We moved half of the cased ammo out to the HQ HumVees." Or--"Those TOWs just won't fit there, sir. They'll have to go on Sparks' trailer." and similar displacements of items without the owner's prior knowledge. "Sorry, sir. You said we hadda have it all loaded and that was the only way we could figger it would fit!"
Just then the Russkies come knocking.
In the "sauve qui peut" of the rear areas' overrun, one or more of your vehicles gets taken by mistake by fleeing members of your unit.
While they don't actually have all their stuff, they know which way it was last seen heading. A hunt, a quest, to recover their rightful property!