Forums of the Megaverse®

Hello. I've not been coming to the forums for a long time, to avoid even seeing something that might inadvertently influence my work. However, after speaking with Sean Owen Roberson and Kevin a few times over the course of GenCon 2024, at Sean's suggestion, I will be around here more, and sometimes soliciting feedback as I refine the process. Sean also suggested I submit some of what I have been working on for The Rifter, which would provide additional feedback.

Here is what I have been working on, this third go at writing Recon.

It is almost universally true, that on either side of a conflict, everybody sees themselves as "the good guy". In Recon: Modern Combat, you and your fellow players will be able to pick which side of a conflict you fight for, whether is is a state sanctioned military or paramilitary force, or a more untrained unofficial partisan or freedom fighter/terrorist group. State sanctioned groups will have better equipment, far better training (usually), and usually better access to current intel. Occupational Character Classes will be limited to two, possibly three, with a wider selection of M.O.S. Skill packages, to represent the kind of specialized training that can be found in a modern military or police force. On the other side of the aisle, I am leaning towards only one O.C.C. having access to M.O.S. Skill packages, and the other O.C.C. having a choice of a much larger number of Secondary Skills, to demonstrate their much wider bank of life skills. You learn a lot, working on a farm, many things you won't learn growing up in a city, and may not be taught when you enlist in the military.

To avoid ticking people off with discussion of current geopolitics, the G.M. is encouraged to not involve any of that, though their campaign may draw parallels, or even directly from the headlines. Change the names of entities and people involved. For example, a fictional nation will be the notable "rogue nation" in the book, the archipelago nation of Cortinia. Why that name? Well back in the day, when I was serving in the US Army, that was the name of our "notional" foreign enemy for all training. In the last 25 years, the US military adopted another name and geopolitical profile for their notional enemy, for training purposes. Cortinia will be a former colonial state of a European power, located in the Pacific, but growing in economic and political strength to threaten not only their neighbors in the region, but also the bigger superpowers and their interests. Cortinia is also believed to sponsor a number of insurgent groups around the globe, extending their influence.

I also envision future sourcebooks that would focus on specific time periods, with one example I gave Kevin and Sean being the Roaring Twenties. One side would be the Chicago mobsters, and the other the local police task forces or the feds, come to town to take them down. A number of cities at the time had significant mob activity, such as Detroit, and G.M.s are encouraged to think locally, when building their campaign settings. Each book would have equipment and just as important, skill lists, specific to that era. For example, a player may have access to a Tommy Gun or a BAR, but not access to common technology we enjoy in the 21st Century. Some skill bonuses and base percentages may also be adjusted, based on what an average person would know at that time.

And this last part is a work in progress, something that may or may not come to pass. I am a gun guy. I was an Infantryman in the Army, and I have been shooting for fun and hunting for fifty years. In the last 30 years alone, technology has changed what we know of ballistics, as well as improving the performance of modern body armor. The armor I personally own weighs less than half that compared to what I wore in the Army, and is rated to perform even better. Bullet design, composition, weight, amount of and kind of powder in the cartridge, barrel length, twist rate of the rifling in the barrel, and even use of a suppressor (silencer is the correct word based on the original patent) can all negatively OR positively affect performance of any given weapon. My preferred caliber for my home defense platform is more effective with a shorter barrel, 8-10 inches, using heavier subsonic rounds, while suppressed, than if I used a longer barrel. And I only use monolithic solid copper bullets, designed to open on impact with soft tissue, and create a watermelon sized temporary wound cavity. If I manage to put together a working system, it would be OPTIONAL, but as I said to Sean, it can't break the current system. It should only make a system that works, better.

I am looking forward to constructive feedback,
Thanks

Cool.

I had made so much house rule and house stat content for N&S and HU back in the day I was ready to pitch it to Kevin as the foundation of a Recon: Modern Combat book back in the 90s, but ended up not. So I am quite curious to see where you go with it.

Will you be using the same basic mechanics? One gripe I have is that it needs a bit more fleshing out on optics use. Recon is good because it isn't too gritty, but it does lack in detail. Say, a sniper for example. Scopes are good for distance, but you should be penalized if you're trying to shoot a moving target close up with a 10x scope. It's also disappointing that the game doesn't flesh out fire support better. Arty and air saved many Recon teams but the system doesn't really give much detail on it. The miniatures rules has some guidelines but they're not workable in the RPG style setting.

jd1

The book will be fully compliant with the core Palladium mechanics. Other than the name, and the possibility that non-urban battlefields may appear if your campaign or the setting requires, it won't resemble the original in any way. I guess I should have included that initially, for clarity. And as far as the modern weapons combat is concerned, UNLESS I can make the optional rules additions I have in mind work within the current system, they won't be included. Sean and I agree that the rules as they stand shouldn't be meddled with unless it is an improvement, without breaking things. I think we've all experienced house/homebrew rules that have been ridiculously out of whack.

For example, a few decades ago now, my friends and I shifted DM responsibilities for a new campaign (2ADND). The incoming DM showed us his custom house rules, and despite my pointing out how out of control they would make things quickly, they went into play. I asked if I could make a character using the Oriental Adventures sourcebook, and create my own martial art form, and was given the green light. I purposely laid it out so that by level 5, I would be extremely overpowered, and hopefully demonstrate exactly what I had argued against. At level 1, I had the meditate ability. Just like elves, no need for sleep, instant alertness, the rest of the group loved not having to pull night watch. And little things added as I leveled, nothing too much, until at level 5 (I forget the specific attack name) I got a variation of a flying circle jump kick, that was an automatic critical, and my enhanced leaping allowed me to go vertical and forward by a factor of five.

The custom critical hit rules allowed a normal crit on a natural 17-18, a double critical hit on a natural 19, and a triple critical hit on a natural 20. I ALWAYS got initiative due to an early bonus from my combat form. So when we unexpectedly encountered a young red dragon, I won initiative, executed my flying circle kick of death, rolled a natural 20, rolled my quintuple critical damage (always max damage from that kick and a double critical too, from the martial art form, and all crits were cumulative) and killed the dragon, with one big toe. The next week those custom rules were gone, my character was killed off, and we never allowed such heavily modified rules at the table again. So I hope you can see why I am loathe to make changes that drastically impact the game over Rules As Written.

Ah, so a setting more than anything else. I like the
Recon mechanic to a point but am excited to hear that this project may be brought back to life.

jd1

TiekoSora wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 1:58 pm
. . .
To avoid ticking people off with discussion of current geopolitics, the G.M. is encouraged to not involve any of that, though their campaign may draw parallels, or even directly from the headlines. . .

That's gonna be tough; Recon's about ideals, and it will be tough to replace communism. Maybe a parallel with a sort of Corporation-Commune? Capitalism, but equal (among share-holders ) Sorry, thinking of Cyberpunk and Robocop. Drug-lords, easy, Dime a dozen. Some odd, Asian-cult based off of some obscure, misinterpreted-philosophy, possible.

Or get rid of communism and replace it with Mill's Utilitarianism, that is, the best moral-action is the one that benefits the greatest number of people as opposed to Ayn Rand's philosophy, which is the best moral-action is one that benefits yourself the most.

And most oppressive, communist-dictatorships, in the 3rd-world, aren't really communist. They just said they were so they get the support from the USSR. Same goes with capitalistic-dictatorship, vice-versa.

In college, I devised opposing ideology based off of Pythagorean-mathematics; I forgot what opposed them though! Darn!