Outgunned Adventure Is Smart As A Whip

Screenshot 2025-05-17 at 11.34.20 AM.png


As much as I love pulp adventure games, I was a little hesitant when Outgunned:Adventure was first announced. I first came to Two Little Mice through Broken Compass, of which Outgunned was a refinement of the system and mechanics. Did I really need another game to simulate my favorite movie series? I decided to take a risk based on Riccardo “Rico” Sirignano and Simone Formicola’s previous work. The Kickstarter recently delivered. Is it a treasure worth seeking or just another false grail on the table? Let’s play to find out.

The Outgunned system uses d6 dice pools for task resolution. Rather than a specific target number, the game looks for matching dice. Most of the time, you’re looking for three of a kind for success, with various character abilities allowing for rerolls to get the proper matches. One of the main evolutions of Outgunned from Broken Compass are more details in what happens when players succeed and when they fail. That includes things like rolls that require separate sets of matches, using extra match sets to help out fellow players and specifics on what the stakes are should the dice come up short.

The system is built around a fail forward philosophy which helps to simulate that beat down action hero look as the story moves on. Player characters rarely die in this game, but they’ll lose points of Grit, watch as treasured gear falls into the pit below and give their Rival points of Heat that can be spent to enhance the actions of the Rival that’s out hunting the same artifact sought by the players this week.

1746211903259.png

For example, players can get conditions that impose penalties like You Look Hurt which reduces a character’s Brawn. There are also custom conditions like You Look Poisoned or You Look Tired, which imposes no penalties but makes it easier to hit the You Look Broken condition which is a -1 dice pool to everything. While Grit comes back during camp scenes where everyone takes a breather in between breathless escapes, getting rid of conditions requires some sort of downtime action. Broken Compass treated these moments as video game checkpoints to rest and recuperate, which made sense given the game’s focus on feeling like games such as Uncharted or Tomb Raider. Mixing in downtime actions open up some fun roleplays moments, such as the heroes figuring out how to beat their rival to the forbidden temple or fix up their trusty seaplane that barely survived the zeppelin attack.

Focusing on a specific type of action makes Outgunned:Adventure a stronger design. The structure of a campaign is straightforward. There’s a treasure, the players have the key to find it and they’re trying to beat the rival to the artifact. The game offers solid advice on how to build each of these items like giving the rival strength but also weaknesses to exploit. There’s a section on supernatural threats that opens with asking the GM to figure out if the fabulous artifact is actually magic, a well-oiled machine that presents as such or just a regular old clay amulet that’s had thousands of years of legend hype up its abilities.

My favorite section of the game focuses on traps. While traps are a part of many RPGs, Outgunned:Adventure puts a spotlight on them because of how central they are to pulp adventure stories. They discuss different types, the resources they can cost players who don’t deactivate or figure them out, and how they have something of a Chekov’s Gun position in these stories. “A trap is a promise” they say and discuss how the trap can still be used to push the story forward even if all the players perfectly avoid it. Maybe it shuts an easy way out behind them. Maybe the Rival triggers it just to show the horrible death they avoided with their excellent rolls. It’s a fascinating discussion that I’ll use whenever I design traps for any other game I’m running.

The main caveat I have for anyone interested in the game is that the designers will be the first to tell you this is not a game for a years long, zero to hero campaign. They suggest each campaign will run between 8 to 10 sessions and that anything longer should be structured like a movie sequel where characters start over. There are rules for advancement, once when the players hit a Point of No Return and once right before the final confrontation to stop the Rival from claiming the Treasure, but if small, incremental increases are a part of your joy in playing these games, that’s hard to find here.These characters start out heroic and stay that way. At this point in my life, 8 to 10 sessions of anything sounds epic but I realize that my preferences are not the only way to do things.

If I put together a campaign I think I would plan seven sessions, one on each continent so I can zoom around the plane on the world map I got as a backer. I would also consider one or two more set in the final temple and that sounds like a blast.

Bottom Line: Outgunned:Adventure is the Indiana Jones RPG I’ve wanted ever since I was a kid.

If you found this review useful, please consider purchasing the product using the embedded affiliate links. Thank you for supporting your friendly local game reviewer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rob Wieland

Rob Wieland

You don't have to treat each encounter as a single collective unit. Using the above example of a tank + squad of soldiers, you would field two unique entities;

Tank, 3 Grit
ATK: Extreme / DEF: Extreme

Soldiers, 9 Grit
ATK: 2 Critical / DEF: Critical

... and have the heroes decide which they want to deal with within the fiction. They could all focus on taking out the tank, while the soldiers chip away at their grit - or prioritize taking out the soldiers first, while avoiding fire from the tank (or split up and do their own thing).

Fielding multiple unique Super Villains would be a similar process; unique units with their own Grit bar and individual powers, and the story would dictate who is engaged with who at any given moment.
For the sake of balance you do need to ensure each PC is only attacked by either the Tank or the Soldiers, never both, each round but yeah that works too.

The big issue is whether you can do it without either degenerate cases (i.e. it always pays to take out X first for mechanical reasons) or it being kind of an intelligence test.
Yeah I'd seek to avoid the first, and I think you could tweak that in various ways, but I think the latter is a low-rank concern for me, because I feel like the majority of RPGs which have any real combat rules could be argued to be an "intelligence test" in that sense, even PtbA games frequently do. I suspect fictional positioning will mess with it quite a lot too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm interested to see how they handle the mixed enemy pool situation for superheroes as well. One thought I had, similar to @Ruin Explorer 's suggestion of having the encounter change at various grit thresholds, would be to take a page from 2LM's earlier game, Household. In Household you play little household spirits (sprites, boggarts, and the like) in an abandoned stately manor. Some enemies in that game, like enormous huntsman spiders, are fought in phased battles. In Household these are done more like boss fights, with a longer first phase that transitions into a brief, but intense and highly dangerous, second part. I could see a similar approach working for villain-plus-minion fights and many supervillain team ups.
 

You don't have to treat each encounter as a single collective unit. Using the above example of a tank + squad of soldiers, you would field two unique entities;

Tank, 3 Grit
ATK: Extreme / DEF: Extreme

Soldiers, 9 Grit
ATK: 2 Critical / DEF: Critical

... and have the heroes decide which they want to deal with within the fiction. They could all focus on taking out the tank, while the soldiers chip away at their grit - or prioritize taking out the soldiers first, while avoiding fire from the tank (or split up and do their own thing).

Fielding multiple unique Super Villains would be a similar process; unique units with their own Grit bar and individual powers, and the story would dictate who is engaged with who at any given moment.

The question comes when its time for the enemies to attack the heroes; which can attack whom? In the normal mechanics its a nonissue, but with your example it becomes a pretty critical question, and there's nothing normally like questions about "how many targets can an enemy attack" in the system so its going to be unusually ad-hoc for the system.
 

Yeah I'd seek to avoid the first, and I think you could tweak that in various ways, but I think the latter is a low-rank concern for me, because I feel like the majority of RPGs which have any real combat rules could be argued to be an "intelligence test" in that sense, even PtbA games frequently do. I suspect fictional positioning will mess with it quite a lot too.

I think its a little more critical here, since the "intelligence test" part can have the PCs doing things that feel pretty genre-contrarian sometimes, and that's liable to be visible in a superhero game much more than some. I also am cynical about how much "fictional positioning" is going to matter with superheroes given at the best of times Outgunned and its kind are pretty vague there, and its going to be even easier to justify finessing this with supers.
 

The question comes when its time for the enemies to attack the heroes; which can attack whom? In the normal mechanics its a nonissue, but with your example it becomes a pretty critical question, and there's nothing normally like questions about "how many targets can an enemy attack" in the system so its going to be unusually ad-hoc for the system.
I would argue that any story-first system is ad-hoc by nature, and the solution to the problem you posed above would be determined by player action within the fiction.

The heroes are moving through a war-torn city, when they are confronted by a group of enemy soldiers - and a tank.
Clearly signpost the tank turret rotating to face them, no Extreme attack in the first reaction turn, but you've warned your players (within the fiction) that the hurt is coming.
Players have the first two action rounds to declare they are moving out of the firing range.
First action round have them roll Brawn+Stunt (2 Critical) to avoid small ams fire from the soldiers.
Second action round have anyone still in the open roll Brawn+Endure (Extreme) against tank fire.
If all heroes have bolted, have the soldiers chuck grenades into their hidey-hole, roll Brawn+Endure (2 Critical) to avoid explosion damage.
... and so on.

The Adventure rules do contain guidance for complicated situations where Heroes are dealing with danger from multiple fronts. If a Hero found themslves being attacked by the tank and soldiers simultaneously, the Director could ask for a Brawn+Stunt roll (Extreme + Critical) to avoid all damage. Rolling that kinda' success is unlikely, but that's where Help, Adrenaline and Spotlight would come into play.
 
Last edited:

I would argue that any story-first system is ad-hoc by nature, and the solution to the problem you posed above would be determined by player action within the fiction.

When it comes to this sort of thing, I don't think that's a virtue, and with the normal game, as I noted its a nonissue. I also note your example is much harder to frame when the high-difficulty opponent is at all mobile and quick, so its much less of a good solution when dealing with supers.
 

You don't have to treat each encounter as a single collective unit. Using the above example of a tank + squad of soldiers, you would field two unique entities;

Tank, 3 Grit
ATK: Extreme / DEF: Extreme

Soldiers, 9 Grit
ATK: 2 Critical / DEF: Critical

... and have the heroes decide which they want to deal with within the fiction. They could all focus on taking out the tank, while the soldiers chip away at their grit - or prioritize taking out the soldiers first, while avoiding fire from the tank (or split up and do their own thing).

Fielding multiple unique Super Villains would be a similar process; unique units with their own Grit bar and individual powers, and the story would dictate who is engaged with who at any given moment.
Their other game - Household - is similar with the basic combat rule being face one foe at a time, ie the biggest. But they come out and state you can use the lesser foes as hindrances until they are dealt with. And they also suggest you can do just what you recommended - just divide up the enemies if that works for your game. I think I'll run from the tank.
 

I think Index Card RPG does this as well, with the whole room/encounter being the same level of challenge.

OTH: For those not so enthused with the "all enemies are one" abstraction, the Cypher system bases every challenge as a level of difficulty but still keeps the sources of those challenges separate, so you can fight a swarm of minions separately from the main super villain.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top