Blood and Guts: Feedback

[gribble]

Well- you can house rule it that way of course. To take another stab at convincing you they're balanced (because I really think they are). Another reason they have a little extra punch in the skill department is that you really need 5 feats to get that bonus all the time. And unless you've taken all the terrain warfare packages, then the GM has total control over when you can and cannot use the feat.

Ok, that argument has me convinced... I guess you do need to take 5 feats to have the equivalent of 5 permanent feats. Didn't see it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

I'd be happy to see them. I'm putting the finishing touches on a web enhancement of british special ops classes right now. If I like them, I will put them in with the new classes if that's ok with you

Great. I'll send them through to the feedback email address for B&G sometime tomorrow then (I'm in Australia, and about to head off to bed). If you like them, feel free to put them in there.

I've had a lot of people ask me this in Blood and Fist threads. It's a mechanic that not a lot of people seem to care for. My reasoning was that the save should get a little EASIER to make as you rise in level, since the consequences for failure go WAY up.

Fair enough, I guess that does help to skew the inherent d20 logic that at every level the chance of making a save should be around 50% in favor of the person making the save. I'm not entirely convinced that this is a good thing though, as I think it might make the saves too easy to make for higher level characters. I guess I'll have to playtest it a bit and see how it works.

Hmm those sound pretty good- let me ponder it a little more.

Let me know that you come up with. Another possibility I thought of was that maybe the ambushers could get a bonus to their initiaitve rolls for the combat - say +2 or something.

Thanks for all the feedback though

No problems.

 

[Vigilance]

Ok, that argument has me convinced... I guess you do need to take 5 feats to have the equivalent of 5 permanent feats. Didn't see it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

He shoots he scores! (Also the Tactics skill isnt much use in BNG without a feat- there's another one for you lol)

Great. I'll send them through to the feedback email address for B&G sometime tomorrow then (I'm in Australia, and about to head off to bed). If you like them, feel free to put them in there.

I look forward to seeing them

Fair enough, I guess that does help to skew the inherent d20 logic that at every level the chance of making a save should be around 50% in favor of the person making the save. I'm not entirely convinced that this is a good thing though, as I think it might make the saves too easy to make for higher level characters. I guess I'll have to playtest it a bit and see how it works.

Well- the martial arts rules in BNF are pretty potent. In our playtest when someone failed their save against an eye-gouge past level 12 or so, the results were very unpretty.

Still- no one seems to like that rule- so it might go the way of triceratops.

I have a feeling most BNF GMs are house ruling around it anyway since no one seems to like it. But you did actually hit my idea with the rule- that the save would get easier (since you are counting the defender's level twice).

Let me know that you come up with. Another possibility I thought of was that maybe the ambushers could get a bonus to their initiaitve rolls for the combat - say +2 or something.

I think I'm going with no action in the surprise round, and a partial action in the first "normal" round.

Monte said something in his 3.5 review that is really striking home with me about Modern and 3.5 (which I think might have been done by the same crew- certainly under the same philosophy) and that's if you're going to make a change make it BIG- noticably big.

Here I am having designed 4 games for this thing and I'm still missing rules because its version 3.48. lol. /rant

Chuck

 

[gribble]

I look forward to seeing them

I sent them through to webmaster@rpgobjects.com (the only contact email on your website)

Still- no one seems to like that rule- so it might go the way of triceratops.

I have a feeling most BNF GMs are house ruling around it anyway since no one seems to like it. But you did actually hit my idea with the rule- that the save would get easier (since you are counting the defender's level twice).

I can understand your reasoning... I'm just not convinced it's the correct solution...
Lets look at a 6th level character... 3 levels of a basic class (lets for argument say a strong hero), 2 levels of an advanced class (again, lets say soldier) and one level of a Special Ops class (lets say an Army Ranger).
His base saves would be Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +1
Lets assume he has a 16 Dex and a 14 Con (not unreasonable for a soldier type character). Gives him total saves of Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +1.
I'm assuming all the Martial Arts maneuvers would have Fort and Ref based saves to avoid, so assuming he's up against a 6th level opponent, the DC of the saves would be 10 + opponent's strength - even if the opponent had 18 Str, our Ranger would make the save on a roll of 7 - around 66% of the time. Even if we make the opponent an 8th level character, our Ranger would still be making his saves 55% of the time (needing a 9 or more).
Looking at a 10th level character (with 5 levels of Ranger), his saves would have increased to at least Fort +9, Ref +9, meaning he'd now make a save against a martial artist (with 18 Str remember!) of the same level on a roll of 5 or more (80% of the time).
Seems to me that this rule makes using Martial arts techniques less effective than just beating the crap out of opponents at high levels...

Compare being blinded for 1d4 rounds and being subjected to lots of opponents attacks during that time, but having an 80% chance of avoiding it... to D&D, where at those levels you can be permanently blinded by a single spell, and should (on average) have only a 50% chance of avoiding it...

I guess I'm just of the opinion that at higher levels the kid gloves should come off... not stay on.

I think I'm going with no action in the surprise round, and a partial action in the first "normal" round.

Fair enough - I've put some notes about this in the talent tree I sent you... they're sort of based on on of the other talents I added though, so you'll have to read that before my notes make a lot of sense.

 

[Vigilance]

Hey gribble- send it to me directly- I get it faster-

ricecharles2112@netzero.net

especially since my publisher (which is who you sent it to) is off to Gen Con shortly.

Chuck

 

[esmdev]

Hi. I purchased Blood & Guts today. All in all, I think it was a good buy, but I did have some problems with it.

First, I had hoped for more information about the military, a bit more about the organization and structure of the Army and way more information about the Navy & Air Force.

My knowledge of the military, and that of my players, is limited to what we can divine from websites... so more information might have been a helpful. For instance, is everyone in a platoon the same or do they have different job functions? Is the guy that gets stuck out in front trained for that, or is he trained the same and just unlucky or not well liked? I had hoped to run a WWIII game along the lines of Band of Brothers (updated of course for the more modern times) but without more information it is still beyond most of my group.

Second, most of the classes provided within require characters to be extremely advanced in level. For special operations types, its really great, but for the 1st level person, most of the classes are just a distant dream. Is is recommended that characters begin above 1st level, or is it just a game designed around really long range progression?

Finally, the promotion system and medal system are good but I think they could use some sort of revision. Characters who get really lucky could go from O1 - Lieutenant to O10 General in 10 levels, but that might only take 6-10 years in the game, or even less in some games. On the opposite side, medals seem to be balanced so that only a low level character is even able to get a congressional medal of honor, while a high level character (lets say 10th) could single handedly stop a large force from flanking your lines and maybe not even roll high enough for a mid-level medal.

Still, I think its helpful, but more could be useful.

Regards,
Eric

 

[Vigilance]

Hi. I purchased Blood & Guts today. All in all, I think it was a good buy, but I did have some problems with it.

First, I had hoped for more information about the military, a bit more about the organization and structure of the Army and way more information about the Navy & Air Force.

My knowledge of the military, and that of my players, is limited to what we can divine from websites... so more information might have been a helpful. For instance, is everyone in a platoon the same or do they have different job functions? Is the guy that gets stuck out in front trained for that, or is he trained the same and just unlucky or not well liked? I had hoped to run a WWIII game along the lines of Band of Brothers (updated of course for the more modern times) but without more information it is still beyond most of my group.

I feel your pain, and that is one reason why I give you a (very) brief primer to the military. However, if you need more information, I'd check the websites in the bibliography.

A complete primer on the military, along with everything else in the book, was a little beyond the scope. Basically, if I included a lot of info on certain types of military campaigns, it would still be useless to most people, and including information on EVERY type of campaign is pretty impossible.

So, I just tried to do most of the heavy lifting rules-wise. If you were starting a fantasy campaign on a new world you'd have some legwork to do that the DMG couldnt do for you. It's the same here- a little research goes a long way.

Also- for a WWII game there are some good resources out there for very little. First- there's so many documentaries about the war on cable I'm surprised we don't have to pay the Germans and the Japanese royalties- that's an old George Carlin joke- but you get the idea

Secondly, I can recommend the WWII Polyhedron minigame "V for Victory", this has the added advantage of WWII weapons statted out for d20.

If you're willing to spend a little more cash, GURPs WWII is a fantastic game with a lot of supplements- the game stats won't be much use for you- but the historical info is top notch.

Second, most of the classes provided within require characters to be extremely advanced in level. For special operations types, its really great, but for the 1st level person, most of the classes are just a distant dream. Is is recommended that characters begin above 1st level, or is it just a game designed around really long range progression?

Well- I think there's a lot in the game for low-level characters as well. The MOS packages, the feats, the rank and medals, the elite units, these comprise a fairly big chunk of the book and are all useful at first level.

Also, I would disagree that most of the classes are a DISTANT dream. Special Forces, Air Force Pararescue, Rangers are all doable by 5th level. If you want to be in SEALs, Force Recon, or Delta Force then it takes a little more time.

If you wanted to start your characters out in Delta Force, then your campaign is going to have an average character level of about 10- so its really a matter of the kind of campaign you want to run.

Finally, the promotion system and medal system are good but I think they could use some sort of revision. Characters who get really lucky could go from O1 - Lieutenant to O10 General in 10 levels, but that might only take 6-10 years in the game, or even less in some games. On the opposite side, medals seem to be balanced so that only a low level character is even able to get a congressional medal of honor, while a high level character (lets say 10th) could single handedly stop a large force from flanking your lines and maybe not even roll high enough for a mid-level medal.

Well- player characters are exceptional. And, there are examples of very young officers achieving significant rank in wartime. Outside of wartime, you wont see enough action to gain 10 levels that quick.

If you're running a special forces campaign, a character above Captain would likely not be given those types of assignments. So you could put a cap on promotions above a certain level if it bothers you.

Also, something you may not have considered is that the advanced training packages require you to spend a feat on them. And *all* OCS gives you is a promotion to 0-1. And since rank in the field, behind enemy lines, where your only subordinates are the other PCs- that was seen as a wasted feat by most of my playtesters.

Special ops units dont stand on ceremony much, so there isnt a lot of rank-pulling needed. Special ops teams are usually run like good PC parties- cooperatively. If a character is a demolitions master- his opinion is going to carry a lot of weight if the mission is to blow up a bridge.

As for medals- a lot of getting a high-end medal is being at the right place at the wrong time

Many people awarded the highest medals are young men drafted into service. Many high ranking generals, by the same token, are never awarded the MOST prestigious medal. So what you see in the medals, that a 1st level character can get a medal of honor or a Bronze Star with V Device- is exactly what I was aiming for, because its something that happens in the real world all the time.

Still, I think its helpful, but more could be useful.

Regards,
Eric

Well- Im glad your overall impression is favorable anyway

The feedback I get on this book seems to be very mixed. People generally like it, but they always have that BUT- and then rattle off a lot of things the book needs that it doesnt have.

I almost always agree with them.

However, it's just a reality that I could not completely cover the topic of american military and special operations campaigns in 100 or so pages.

So of course the book will be incomplete- it wasnt intended to cover everything- it was meant to be a starting place- for you guys to get going with, and for me to return to in future books to fill out the topic more.

Chuck

 

[jonrog1]

/rant

Not to start a flame war, but I gotta step in here.

" B&G has some interesting parts I will borrow for my own games, but the lack of research and attention to detail is quite unfortunate."

THAT's the sentence I, and I think a few others, have problems with. Everything up to that point was dry but civil.

A hundred pages, less than 20 extreeeemely technical errors, several of which are in contention based on which research source we cite, and some were fudges based on game design.

So, after all the above entries, I just want to throw this in:

Great book, Vigilance.

/SNIP long, pissed-off letter about how hard it is to balance stats, game design and entertainment value, about how an author saying "I decided it would be that " is ALL the reasoning he needs because it's his FRIKKIN' job, and how saying "I run a much more detailed D20 game, and these variations may be important to me and those of my ilk, so let me help you out here" is polite and constructive while saying "this product is poorly researched" is condescending and rude /SNIP

Love all the Blood & ... books, and when my website goes up in September, I"ll be doing a package review. Looking forward to the update, gribble's additions look very interestion.

/rant

Oh, and esmdev, there are two cool sources for your "how does so-and-so" work. Tom Clancy wrote a series of books about different military branches a while ago, and -- this is VERY cool -- you can go to yahoo and find a couple different yahoo groups of veterans and active personnel. They're giddy when someone politely e-mails them and asks them a question. I got a plot point for a film based on one pilot's recollection of problems with the P-40's cockpit release.

 

[Vigilance]

Thanks Jonrog!

Do me a favor and send me some mail offlist at ricecharles2112@netzero.net and you might get the chance to see the next blood book early.

*cough* playtest opportunity *cough* swag

Damn that frog has been in my throat all day.

Thanks again for the praise man

Chuck

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Argh! So many factual errors on both sides of the discussion....

I'd like to address some...

1. MEU as an elite unit - Only after they have their SOC certification. The MEU(SOC) units maintain a different level of readiness from the MEUs. For instance, they have CQB teams on hand, armed with MP-5Ns and the MEU(SOC) .45 Caliber Service Pistol (a rebuilt M1911A1, which are supposedly no longer in service, eh?) In order of "eliteness", there would be the MEUs, the MEU(SOC) teams, and finally at the top, Force and Radio Recon.

2. M249: The M249 is a different beast from the FN Minimi. It is also a Squad Automatic Weapon, which means it is issued on a squad level. The M60 was normally issued on the platoon level, though during the 1970's, there were periods where it was issued as a SAW prior to the introduction of the failed M16A2 LMG. However, by the time the M249 entered service, the M60 was once again a platoon-level weapon and the M16A2 LMGs were long retired. Most US weapons are different from their foreign stock counterparts. The DoD is such a big buyer, that it can demand changes in stock weapons and get them without batting an eye. The big difference in the M249 from the Minimi are some materials changes to further lighten the weapon (but reducing reliability as well). Additionally, the M60 was not replaced by the M249. It was replaced by the M240B in the AUSA, the M240G in the USMC, and the M240N in the USN. The USN has gone a step further, now relegating the M240N to a light boat weapon and arming its SEALs with the newly developed Mk 46 Mod 0 lightweight medium machinegun. Like the M249, the M240 series is also different from its FN MAG-58 counterpart. the MAG uses mostly milled parts, while the M240 lightens the weapon through the use of as many stamped parts as possible, which are then welded and riveted together. It's amazing and rather amusing to see a weary M240B on its last legs pop its rivets and promptly dump its entire action on the ground as the side panel falls off with the next discharge of a round.

However, like every retired weapon, the DoD retains a stockpile of the old weapons. An old gun still kills. Had the M240B and G models suffered some sort of widespread, environmentally caused catastrophic failure during Operation: Iraqi Freedom, the old M60E3s could have been dragged out of mothballs and put back into service with relative ease. This stockpile also provides supplies for training purposes, since the M60 is not a weapon exclsuive to the United States.

However, having access to after-action reports issued by both the USMC and AUSA in Iraq, the Marines had things to say in the reports about the M60, which indicates that as recently as last April, the M60E3 was still fighting in the hands of some US forces.

3. Yes, the Marines have their own logistical command. The Navy just supplies the means to get things ashore. After that, the Marines have to figure out how to get it where they want. Incidentally, from personal experience, I have to say the Marines do a damn sight better at logistics these days than the Army, too.


As everyone can now see, both sides of the discussion made plenty of hefty mistakes. There's no sense in worrying about it. Just make due and either wait for something better to come along, or in this day and age of the OGL, write the freaking thing yourself!

Incidentally, I bought B&G after the update, and there are still plenty of glaring informational errors in it. I'm not worried. I know that at least where the weapons are concerned, I'll eventually get around to writing something better. My only complaint is with the choice of a font that is easily misread at high speed, which created quite a bit of confusion, such as wondering what the game Silent Hill had to do with the subject matter...

Dana Jorgensen
Alternate Realities Publications
Author of Big Bang: The Mostly Illustrated RPG Guide to Modern Weapons

 

[jonrog1]

Seriously. Good frikkin' lord. Is there no professional courtesy or humility on these boards?

I'll grant you this. In the "armor plating thickness to the millimeter" scale, "we're all tech fans who play in my campaign" style, B&G probably has more than a few problems.

In the "entry level, including classes, etc, to get people interested in this style of play so more people will go out and actually buy my tech spec supplement" scale, B&G is a crucial success. You saw esmdev's letter, and I think he's indicative of a larger phenomena. People want to play this style of game, but they need the framework. In that way, as far as promoting the health and success of our always-on-the-verge-of-extinction hobby, I'd rather have a dozen B&G's with errata helpfully supplied by enthusiastic friends, than a thousand tech supplements.

I'm not saying we should let tech errors go. But placing another person's product in proper context, and a little attitude check while pointing out these errors is apparently beyond ....

Oh, for chrissake, I'm just rewriting the long letter I wrote and then snipped in my last post.

I do have to relate an amusing, somewhat relevant anecdote. Just talked to a friend of mine who had the pleasure of serving his country for several years, and did indeed get shot at. With this thread on my mind, I asked him: "You ever use one of those TOW missiles?"

"Ay-up."

"Which weapon system did you use? The Hellfire, the Longbow, or one of the Hellfire variants?"

He smiled, looked at me and said:

"Whatever one was in the f*&kin' box."