NCR Troopers

[Quilboarian]

[media]



[/media]
I heard my dad listening to a few Falloutty-sounding songs, which gave me a bit of inspiration. I'm bored.

Well, I thought of a basic layout of the idea I had. The players would be troopers in the New California Republic Army, belonging to the junior-enlisted ranks. They wouldn't be on any particular mission, although they would be thrown into a dangerous situation when some things go awry, and the officer in charge becomes killed. They would then be forced to fight their way to the nearest NCR base/settlement, as their enemies begin to hunt them down and pick them off one by one.


The RP would be quite dangerous for the player characters, so expect lots of death, and only a minority of the troopers (if any) to actually survive.


I'm thinking of a simple system whereupon the players can choose their starting equipment, although there wouldn't be too much selection for canon reasons. Although the service rifle would be the mainstay weapon, 9mm SMGs, hunting rifles, caravan shotguns, etc. would be available. Could have squad positions like a marksman, medic, etc. The highest rank possible would probably be corporal.


I'm not sure what system it is. I usually just make things simple and home-brewed, or whatever.

 

[vinom]

The original Deadlands system, if you strip out the magic would be good for this. Right feel, deadliness, and with enough skills and mechanics to handle a good military campaign.

 

[vinom]

Heck, Between the Weird West, Hell on Earth, and Lost Colony of the Deadlands system (Second edition errata, not Deadlands-reloaded, of course) you have all the wild west, mad max, and future noir you need for a good fallout game,

 

[Quilboarian]

What would you call it when you simply roll any way you see fit, and generally keep the numbers confidential? That's how I've usually done it- I just examine what action is being taken, and make up the roll based on the circumstances. I don't usually keep stats- if I do, usually only basic ones.

 

[vinom]

Honestly... I wouldn't call that a very dice based system at all.

 

[Quilboarian]

I came up with it on my own for use on another site, and I've really never played many D&D type games. Apparently my way is somewhat similar to D&D, though. The story is progressed by player actions, and I simply provide oversight and control the environment around them. I'm in a somewhat dictatorial position, really- but I try to be neutral. I'll refrain from having any real character of my own, though I try to make NPCs interesting to interact with, and such. It doesn't revolve around dice, I just utilize dice as one of my tools to decide an outcome, if I see fit.

 

[vinom]

Look, table top role play games are co-operative story telling games. Mechanics are how players tell the DM (GM, ST, Marshal, Editor, ect) and even other players what their character is good at and what they're bad at. What they've gone through and are willing to go through. Different systems express all this differently, but they're kept to a rigid 'set up' so that it's easy to measure how good a given character is at something.

 

[Quilboarian]

I can see how players could select physical strengths and drawbacks. Though, I've always refrained from having things such as charisma and intelligence in the form of stats, because it depends on the player, really. If you're trying to convince a bandit not to shoot you, you have to actually type something convincing. However, a character's demeanor is still important in negotiations and such; it could consist of both selected and uncontrolled factors. Maybe you can give a good speech, but your voice naturally doesn't sound very authoriative. If you're not very good at convincing people with your arguments, you might have selected a trait that your character is physically attractive, or something along those lines. Factors that come into play regardless of what you did during character creation may be things like the clothes you decide to put on, or if you manage to get blood all over you, etc. Erm, yeah.

 

[vinom]

Why? If I'm hinder my my real life lack of Charisma, Intellect, or Wit, why not by the fact I can't really speak dwarven, or run in fullplate armor... A player and a character are different entities.

 

[Quilboarian]

Well, if you cannot make good decisions, or make convincing arguments, etc., then nor does your character; assuming they are going to roleplay anything in actual detail.


In my roleplays, it is not acceptable to simply post something like "I try to convince the person to do this." This is because you have to actually type what your character is going to say, and if it turns out to be unconvincing crap, yet your character is supposedly incredibly charismatic, then it creates problems.

 

[vinom]

Ok, but why should we be able to mechanically say "I'm good at X" and have it cover stealth, swordfighting, magic, and knowledge, but not haggling and seduction. Why should those skills not be supported by the system?


I don't know how to swing a battle axe. So if I just say "I try and hit the person worth my battle axe." is that not acceptable. Should I have to figure out what the parts are called, what muscles I use, and all that, or does the system say that because I invest into that ability?


Why should social skills be any different? Because guess what, if someone role-plays a character incredibly charismatically when they don't have the skill to back it up is more of a problem.


To quote the Giant in the Playground

I want Diplomacy to be able to answer questions like this when I don't have the answers predetermined, and it cannot do that as it stands. I want to be able to say, "Hmm, you asked the Duke to give you a 5000 gp advance on your next adventuring fee…roll Diplomacy to see if he goes for it." Right now, it doesn't really work that way. In short, D&D does not make me have to decide on the spot whether the PC's sword strikes the target; it provides rules for determining that. Why shouldn't there be rules for determining what happens when you ask an NPC to give too much?

In short, without a mechanical set up for social interaction, it's not something anyone can be good at, because everything is at the whim of the DM rather then an mechanical determination.

 

[Quilboarian]

Just so you know, I haven't done anything fantasy-based in awhile. So, magic is out of the question entirely, and the amount of melee is reduced.


Anyway, about other skills that characters might have, but the real players might not- I tend to restrict that too, unless someone having a skill set is actually needed for plot reasons. Many of my roleplays put players in the shoes of random civilians who aren't necessarily supposed to possess a great deal of skills anyway, and thus have to rely on their more basic smarts.


For combat, I prefer that people (at the minimum) specify how many times they fire, as well as where they try to hit (unless they have an automatic weapon, or are blind-firing, of course). But it's good if somebody adds more description, too. If someone takes the time to include other details, like their aiming stance, or how they breathed- that's better. I wouldn't factor in much else, character-wise. Environmental things, like the distance from the target, their movement, and what kind of gun being used would play a bigger role.


The same can go for basically any action you try to do- if you make it precise and detailed, then I have less ability to say you screwed up somewhere along the line.

 

[vinom]

Right, and if someone plays a random civilian blacksmith and the player doesn't know how to blacksmith?


Or a School Teacher whose player doesn't know the setting history?


Would those random civilian characters be disallowed because the players lack knowledge and skills their characters have?

 

[Quilboarian]

If there probably won't ever be a time to apply such skills in the roleplay, then it's usually fine. If your character had a job which you aren't well-versed in, but that job isn't overwhelmingly useful in the circumstances of the RP, it's fine. If you just so happen to find a useful application for your character's skill, then I'll let your character know what to do, since it typically won't hurt.


Or, your character's background could simply manifest itself in other ways. ex: Player with a character that taught social studies comes across a situation where one should take into account universe-specific cultural/ethnic conflicts, or things along those lines; as the GM, I'd give the player pointers about it, or could be prompted to.

 

[vinom]

Ok, then why can't it be the same way with social skills. Why can't the character's skill in say haggling or interrogations allow the GM to inform the player of what the character would have noticed and know to press?


It's not like I know how to do even half of the things my characters can do.

 

[Quilboarian]

Because talking is a universal skill. If there is a zombie apocalypse roleplay and your character is a plumber, yet you personally don't know anything about plumbing, then I don't care- you won't be doing any plumbing anyways.


But speech skills can be applied to a massive range of situations. It's a basic thing, really. In my roleplays, influencing NPCs is reflected by your real ability and what you actually decide to say; it doesn't work by posting "try to convince them" and just saying that your character is charismatic.

 

[vinom]

Talking is a universal skill and so is fighting, heck that's more universal. If I'm piss poor at both of them, why should I be limited in which one a character I'm roleplaying can be good at?

 

[Quilboarian]

If you have at least basic knowledge on how, say, firearms work, then you likely won't run into any problems. As long as you don't do anything stupid like try to snipe someone with a shotgun, you should be fine. If you go about specifying smaller details and being descriptive, then it's more of a bonus. Also, in-game weapon manuals could be read if the player found them.


Even if you shoot slightly better than others because of your real knowledge, it's not like your character becomes superior in every other aspect. A gunspert will still die if they end up starting the wrong fight with the wrong people- whereas an unskilled player could make better decisions and remain alive.


If you suck at both, well, you'll have to rely on something else. If you suck at everything, then you die.

 

[vinom]

It seems like you don't seem to want to play with player/character distinction. That rolls both ways. Every character is an expert in everything a player is willing to google.

 

[Quilboarian]

Yeah, it's not so much about playing a character that is completely different from you as a person. Instead, it's more about playing someone roughly similar to yourself, just set in a stressful fictional scenario. Though, you still don't need to play as someone with the same personality, necessarily- you can still make your character behave differently than you normally would in real life.


As for using google and such, I like to think I'd be able to catch people who do it to the extent where real problems occur. If they do it subtly and I don't notice, then it probably isn't anything big anyways.

 

[vinom]

What's the point of roleplay a character who has all the same skills and abilities as you? You could go out and do all the things rather then type descriptions.

 

[Quilboarian]

That's why you're placed in a usually dangerous fictional scenario where you have to think quickly and make the right decisions in order to survive. It's not about being a special snowflake, it's about being in your character's shoes and making choices. In a zombie roleplay, for example, I find it more interesting when characters are just ordinary people, which truly makes the situation dangerous for them to be in. It is not fun if everyone is automatically a seasoned ex-military person or survivalist- people should develop over time.

 

[vinom]

It's not about being a special snowflake, it's about being in your character's shoes and making choices. In a zombie roleplay, for example, I find it more interesting when characters are just ordinary people, which truly makes the situation dangerous for them to be in. It is not fun if everyone is automatically a seasoned ex-military person or survivalist- people should develop over time.

I agree with this style of play, I just don't think that my character's shoes should have to resemble my own. Heck, the idea I was kicking around for this Fallout game is a farmer whose so behind on a debt that he has to leave his family for a stint in the NCR to have a chance of keeping the farm. Now I've never been a farmer nor a soldier, I haven't been a parent nor a spouse, and never have I had to do something I dislike for the sake of someone I love... but that's what I'd like to roleplay in this game. And maybe this character is good at being a calm voice of reason, even if I'm not. If that is a trait that arises from the crafting of his build and backstory, why should my lack of ability effect his talents?

 

[Quilboarian]

It's sort-of like...I can play a character who is nicer and more optimistic than I am in real life, as long as I can understand how that type of personality works.


An example of what I cannot do is play a character that is incredibly good at arguing his point of view, unless I possess that skill myself. Because if I honestly can't do a good job at convincing people, then my character is probably going to be the same way, considering I'm required to actually type their dialog rather than just hit a "Convince" button. Still, your character's voice can have a certain tone to it- but it does not reflect what they say.

 

[vinom]

It's sort-of like...I can play a character who is nicer and more optimistic than I am in real life, as long as I can understand how that type of personality works.
An example of what I cannot do is play a character that is incredibly good at arguing his point of view, unless I possess that skill myself. Because if I honestly can't do a good job at convincing people, then my character is probably going to be the same way, considering I'm required to actually type their dialog rather than just hit a "Convince" button. Still, your character's voice can have a certain tone to it- but it does not reflect what they say.

Perhaps... but just like you don't have to describe every action of reloading a gun, or tracking an animal, you don't have to narrate every line in a social encounter. For example, rather then writing out exactly what I say to settle a bar fight, I could type; Jeptha's voice booms over the building argument, admonishing all of the drunk fools quite like a father scolding a child, in a tone that their fathers took when they roughhoused with their brothers at the dinner table. [insert rolling of skill to indicate successfulness of tactic.]