d20 WWII?

[Aaron2]

I suggest reading up some 'real account' kind of books, like Ambrose's Band of Brothers, or even more useful for me was Gavin's On to Berlin. They give you a good overall view of how various encounters usually came about, though those 2 from more of an elite unit perspective.

One of my faves is Roll Me Over by Raymond Gantter. He was married, in his 30s, and a college graduate when he volunteered to be a private in the infantry. Certainly not an elite unit perspective. The book is well written. Its similar in style to Webster's Parachute Infantry.

1) Recon. Pick a particular part of the war and send them out to recon the enemy. Make sure they realize that finding out information about enemy strength and disposition is better than just running into Germans and gunning it out.

Do I just hand out a map of the area? How do I keep this from turning into a giant tabletop miniatures game? I guess my problem is dealing (as a DM) with a large, mostly open, outdoor setting. Even a short ranged weapon, such as a Panzerfaust 30, can fire completely across the table at 1" = 5 ft. I could use d20 Modern's 50 ft. scale but I also need low level detail in case the players need to jump behind a wall or house. Most 1:1 scale minature rules (such as Battleground WWII) distort ground scale. For ex: you can throw a grenade only 4", rifle fire is long range at 30" etc. Is it possible to play without miniatures where thing like terrain, visibility, and being hull down are incredibly important?

Oh, and just general advice, give them a haltrack instead of an armored combat car. More PC's can fit in it with a little gear, and you may have a touch more mobility depending on the conditions. Just a suggestion.

Whoah. How many PCs do you think I have?! I've got three players and an M8 has a crew of four. I figure one NPC to guard when the rest are dismounted. Plus no one gets stuck as the loader. Anyway, I have rules for AFV combat that I need to test.


Aaron

 

[ledded]

One of my faves is Roll Me Over by Raymond Gantter. He was married, in his 30s, and a college graduate when he volunteered to be a private in the infantry. Certainly not an elite unit perspective. The book is well written. Its similar in style to Webster's Parachute Infantry.

Ah. Very good books, and forgive me for even looking like I suggested you had not done your homework. Though if you have not read Gavin's book, I would read it. It was a very good prespective by a well respected "fighting general" during WWII, and gives some interesting perspective to the post-Berlin split cold war.

Do I just hand out a map of the area? How do I keep this from turning into a giant tabletop miniatures game? I guess my problem is dealing (as a DM) with a large, mostly open, outdoor setting. Even a short ranged weapon, such as a Panzerfaust 30, can fire completely across the table at 1" = 5 ft. I could use d20 Modern's 50 ft. scale but I also need low level detail in case the players need to jump behind a wall or house. Most 1:1 scale minature rules (such as Battleground WWII) distort ground scale. For ex: you can throw a grenade only 4", rifle fire is long range at 30" etc. Is it possible to play without miniatures where thing like terrain, visibility, and being hull down are incredibly important?

Well, unfortunately, it is close to impossible to do anything other than close unit encounters without doing something about scale or using a big tabletop. We do the big tabletop with miniatures and it looks like a Warhammer game, but we only play RPG's and it's a ton of fun. We have lots of buildings, terrain, rubble, and homemade tiles to put down for roads and such so it's a lot of fun.

See the minaitures link in my sig for a few snapshots of a WWII encounter that includes several tanks, halftracks, etc. The story hour link is the write-up from the campaign, though if you stop by I warn you it isnt straight WWII as my players decided (at the last minute) that they wanted to mix Superheros into WWII. It's fun, but more of a gritty comic book feel than an actual realism campaign.

Most of the time I have the encounters start somewhere where visibility/line of sight is somewhat limited, i.e. wooded or urban, so the extreme ranges are not so much of an issue; this is what I would suggest for you if you dont want to large scale everything. Such as an ambush closely hedged in by woods; you can describe battle sounds off to their left and right and imply that moving in that direction would be *bad* and try to get them to concentate on their area of the line. The city-scapes are easy as you can set up a couple city blocks, and have a sniper take shots at them for several rounds with near impunity until they can get close enough to spot him or lay down effective fire. Starting the action in a trench system with bunkers, an old manor house, etc limits the amount of area you have to deal with. Also, you can be ambiguous about distance if you have to; I have set up the PC's and the Nazis in 2 different locations that are relatively far apart but were close together on the table, then fudged the intervening distance though gameplay until they get close enough or manage to destroy each other at long range.

Think of it like a movie; set up the "scene" in your mind limited by the perspective you have on it and let them work within that. Otherwise it can get out of hand.

As far as maps, I would do a "players map" that shows them what they know or need to know, and have a GM's map that has additional stuff you can reveal to them later. This is essential if you play in a game where you dont use a ton of miniatures and terrain, as position/cover is very, very important to success in a WWII action game.

I warn you about close WWII action though, if your players are D&D'ers who want to go toe-to-toe they will die. Very. Quickly.

There are tons of automatic weapons, grenades, artillery, flamethrowers and all kinds of nasty badness they will face. Heck, I had a SdKfz 251/1 mittlere Schützenpanzerwagen (Wurfrahmen 40) drop a barrage of 280mm rockets on them, and at 5th level it nearly killed several of the PC's (and killed over a dozen of the NPC's). With my barrage/morale rules stolen from V for Victory, one of the guys spent a few round p*ssing his pants and running in circles before getting himself under control.

But they have learned to live in fear of the Tiger tank, and to take some friggin' cover if they even think they hear artillery

Whoah. How many PCs do you think I have?! I've got three players and an M8 has a crew of four. I figure one NPC to guard when the rest are dismounted. Plus no one gets stuck as the loader. Anyway, I have rules for AFV combat that I need to test.
Aaron

Yeah, we have a group of 5 guys and I tend to put a few low-level NPC's with the group for 'cinematic fodder', essential non-combat crew (loaders, ammunition carriers, etc) or for someone to take over if their guy gets completely whacked (hey, war is hell, tell your PC's to get used to it ;^) ) so a halftrack is more appropriate more often than not. The NPC's dont take any crucial actions at all, and might as well not be there unless it's absolutely necessary to use them to avoid a TPK or something like that.

So far my players have had a lot of fun with this.

 

[Atridis]

Just exactly do you write a WWII adventure that isn't a Kelly's Heroes/Eagle Dare commando raid?

I also recommend reading first-hand accounts of combat. I enjoyed Citizen Soldiers and Pegasus Bridge, also by Ambrose. Don't restrict yourself to WWII, either. I'm sure a WWII or Vietnam vet would recognize some of the people and events in books like Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles and Blackhawk Down.

If you have the chance, talk to a veteran: One of my grandfather's nephews was in the Ardennes when the Germans attacked. He was part of a mortar team, only a few hundred yards behind the front line, and they had NO idea what was going on. It was just chaos, for several days. They heard rumors of the German attack (rumors, mind you, are not required to have any relationship with reality), then they heard shooting, then the guys up ahead of them came running like rabbits from a forest fire. They didn't stick around to see what they were running from, they just took off.

Keep in mind that you're running an rpg, not a wargame. You might be better off thinking of a large battle as a setting, rather than a plot in itself. As a GM describing such a battle, keep everything first-person; you should feel no responsibility to give the players any sense of the big picture. A small knot of infantry wouldn't always (or often) know who was where, who was doing what, or even who was who. "Friendly fire" was (and is) a serious concern for ground-pounders everywhere, especially when allied units of different nationalities are practically rubbing shoulders. And think about this: A common problem with the poorly-trained replacements that went to Europe was that they wouldn't shoot if they couldn't see the enemy.

You can have fun putting the fear of God into your players: Bullets whiz past their heads, out of nowhere. Smoke-filled streets. The sounds of shooting and booted feet "over there, somewhere." Engine noises can carry quite a distance, and experienced men could hear the difference between a Sherman and a Panther.

Remember also that Germans are not the only people American soldiers could interact with. There are French, Belgian, Dutch and German civilians and other American and Allied soldiers. You could have an adventure set entirely in Paris, while the men are on leave: The PCs have to scrounge up something illicit from French "entreprenuers" while evading the MPs and competing with other American soldiers from a rival unit.

 

[ledded]

I agree.

If you do have a chance interview some veterans who are willing to talk about their experiences.

When I was in high school ROTC I did a research project on WWII and one of my instructors hooked me up with several veterans. I was able to talk at length with 2 D-Day survivors (one from Omaha, and one from Utah), a tank driver that rolled into Bastonge with Patton (and survived having *3* tanks shot out from under him), and a survivor of the Battle of Hurtgen forest.

It gives you are unique perspective on things, and really helps you to understand the kind of people went the extra yard for their country.


Good campaign suggestions there too.

 

[Atridis]

Other ETO campaign ideas. Each allows a small group to operate with some autonomy, each has historical options for women as viable Player Characters, and none is simply one big battle after another (not that such a game is inherently bad, but I find they get dull quickly):

- An American bomber crew at a base in England. Most of the game would take place between missions; the bombing missions themselves could be described by the GM without any in-game resolution. If I ran such a game, the first bombing mission would be fully played out, to give the players a sense of life in the air. After that, the missions would tend to be fairly repetitive anyway. PCs could be American or British airmen, ground personnel, or civilians.

- 470 operatives (39 of whom were women) of the UK's Special Operations Executive parachuted into France to conduct sabotage and espionage missions. PCs could be British, Scottish, Canadian, Free French, or Polish SOE agents or French Resistance (or even the Communist Maquis, if you wanted to have a little intra-party strife, arguing political philosophy while dodging the Gestapo).

- 3-man "Jedburgh Teams" parachuted into German-occupied Europe ahead of advancing Allied armies. Their mission was to contact French Resistance and conduct behind-the-lines sabotage missions. Teams were composed of Americans, Free French, and British (or Canadians), often one of each. An obvious role for a fourth PC would be as a French Resistance liaison.

- Agents of the US Office of Special Services operated in the Balkans, trying to coordinate rival partisan groups against the Germans and Italians. American activity in Afghanistan, organizing the "Northern Alliance" against the Taliban, was very reminiscent of OSS activity during WWII. Not coincidentally, after WWII the OSS was reorganized as the Central Intelligence Agency.

- For the truly adventurous, a small group of (relatively) benign German officers overseeing a small Norman village would face a real challenge in carrying out their orders and protecting themselves and their men, while trying to remain civilized. Only a few French actively resisted; many tolerated and even cooperated with the Germans. Recurring adversaries could include a local Resistance cell and an SS officer whose methods of "maintaining order" rankle the Wehrmacht PCs. Eventually, of course, the approaching Allied guns would be heard in the distance...

 

[Aaron2]

- Agents of the US Office of Special Services operated in the Balkans, trying to coordinate rival partisan groups against the Germans and Italians.

I read a good book about the partisan war in Greece. It seemed like it would make a great campaign setting chiefly because it isn't as well known as Yugoslavia. Plus much of the action was taken by small groups (2-6 men), first against disinterested Italians and later against Germans. The book was called Greek Entanglements and was full of curious characters.


Aaron

 

[ledded]

I read a good book about the partisan war in Greece. It seemed like it would make a great campaign setting chiefly because it isn't as well known as Yugoslavia. Plus much of the action was taken by small groups (2-6 men), first against disinterested Italians and later against Germans. The book was called Greek Entanglements and was full of curious characters.


Aaron

Interesting, I'll have to check it out. I just recently finished a book called the Bielski Partisans, which was a very good account of a group of Belorussian Jewish partisans that successfully evaded annihilation by the Nazis and saved quite a few Jewish people from the ghettos. It's worth a read, particularly to those who would like to hear true stories about European Jewry being portrayed as something other than somewhat passive victims.

Also, I finished looking over WW2H and while I found it to be a very lucid and well organized work, there were a few things I had issue with.

First, their class system just seemed a bit unnecessary and a little confusing to me. Not that it isnt good, and I understand their reasoning behind it, but I dont think I'll be using it. Some of their feats and additional mechanics (Leadership, Discipline, etc) seemed to be a bit unnecessary or a bit over-extended from stats, skills, or features already in d20 Modern, but that is more of a personal issue; I didnt like the way it worked but I'm biased because I have ways of taking those concepts into effect that I already like that don't extend the base d20 Modern system that much.

Second, while I've heard good things about their weapons section, there were quite a few things I was a bit confused by. It was well written and well researched, but some of the stats just seemed a bit incongruous to me, but then again I am not an expert in firearms. Here are a few examples:

The BAR, 1903 Springfield, and M1 Garand all have different base damage die (d8, d12, and d10) but their ammunition is the same caliber (and seemed to be quite similar in the descriptive detail also as far as firing characteristics). I really dont know the basis for giving a Springfield the same damage as a .50 cal M2, or for shorting the BAR when compared to the M1. It may have been a flavor/game balance issue, but I didnt really get it, as I was under the impression that their ammunition was reasonably similar, however I may be wrong. The M1911 .45 and the Thompson had different damage die also, but there was nothing I could see that would lend me to see what distinguished the difference between them. I'm not saying it was wrong, only that I didnt understand it.

And my real stickler... the 'commando knife' and bayonet does a d6 instead over a d4 for a knife or dagger. I thought maybe they intended it to be a K-Bar, long bayonet or some kind of 'big knife', but they specifically give the Sykes-Fairbain as a reference, which while a fine knife is still relatively the same size as most weapons that are looped into the small knife/dagger category in d20 games, and the bayonet is a very generic description of all bayonets (maybe it was intended to reflect a rifle-mounted bayonet damage, but it wasnt clear). So they assigned higher damage to bayonets and commando knives while also scaling down rifle butt damage from d20 Modern; not that it isnt realistic or right, but deviates yet again from d20 Modern for reasons unbeknownst to me.

There was no mention of flamethrowers that I could find besides seeing them in one of the very nice pictures; possibly they intended that you use the d20 Modern flamethrower as is, but I'm not sure.

There were a few other items whose stats contradicted what I've read from various sources, though the flaws there may admittedly be mine to begin with.

Like I said, I'm not a total firearms expert, but I had the same issue with their small arms section as I've had in several other works portraying this approximate time period. Dana, if you read this and can shed some light on it for me, I'd appreciate your input.

But there are a ton of positives about this work, and I will be drawing from it quite a bit in my campaigns in the future.

It was very lucid and well written, very well researched, and had a good bit of VERY nice background information. The vehicles section was well done (yea Penetration!) and their overall treatment of firearms is very good and workable for a WWII game, even though they deviate from the d20 Modern system a good bit. The sections on gamemastering and squad tactics are very good and darn near indespensible for someone just getting into a WWII game; they would have saved me some time on the front end. The rank and awards system is very good and reflective of a WWII environment. The mundane equipment lists are a very good reference also.

The author seemed to have a very good background and understanding of the subject matter, and a genuine love for the material shines through on nearly every page; all in all I very much liked it other than the few points I listed above.

 

[Aaron2]

The BAR, 1903 Springfield, and M1 Garand all have different base damage die (d8, d12, and d10) but their ammunition is the same caliber (and seemed to be quite similar in the descriptive detail also as far as firing characteristics). I really dont know the basis for giving a Springfield the same damage as a .50 cal M2, or for shorting the BAR when compared to the M1. It may have been a flavor/game balance issue, but I didnt really get it, as I was under the impression that their ammunition was reasonably similar, however I may be wrong. The M1911 .45 and the Thompson had different damage die also, but there was nothing I could see that would lend me to see what distinguished the difference between them. I'm not saying it was wrong, only that I didnt understand it.

The BAR, Springfield and M1 Garand all used the exact same .30-06 round. Likewise, the M1911, Thompson and M3 Grease Gun fired the .45 ACP round.

I know that V for Victory uses the Damage By Caliber chart from d20 CoC so its weapon tables are a bit more consistant. I don't know what Pazio intends to do with all their mini-games. There are some of them I'd like to see made into full games (preferably in a smaller $19.95 softback format).


Aaron

 

[Krieg]

FWIW the Thompson vs Colt damage discrepency does at least have some merit. Longer barrel = higher velocity. Higher velocity = greater terminal energy.

That being said, differing base damage for the BAR, Garand & M1903 is definitely odd.

How do they handle semi & auto fire from the Garand and BAR respectively as compared to the Springfield?

 

[Aaron2]

How do they handle semi & auto fire from the Garand and BAR respectively as compared to the Springfield?

With a semi-auto weapon, like the M1 Garand, you can fire 2 shots per round (like a free Rapid Shot). A BAR gets autofire (either +2 dice damage with -4 to hit or -6 to hit and forces Reflex saves in 10x10 area). The rules seem to imply that firing one shot from a bolt-action rifle is a full-round action. Here's a quote ...

"Bolt-action weapons can be fired and rechambered
a maximum of once per round, also
as a full-round action. Technically, you could
say that the firing is an attack action and the
operation of the bolt mechanism to re-chamber
a new round is a movement action. However,
for simplicity we make this into one full-round
action."

This I don't like.


Aaron