Players and Equipment

[Mahatatain]

I'm in the process of setting up a new T2k campaign and I wanted to check if other people had encountered two problems concerning equipment that I've encountered with games I've either run or played in.

Firstly I've found that player characters start with too much equipment, particularly ammo, and that the campaign has to play for a considerable time to get to a point where they start to think about conserving ammo.

Secondly I've found that some players become obsessed with retaining/recovering armoured vehicles and that they are prepared to take excessive risks to recover them.

My questions are therefore:

1. When setting up a campaign do you allow the full $ allocation of starting equipment to each player or do you restrict it in some way For example only allowing half the $ value

2. Do you limit player's access to certain items of equipment during character creation For example limited quantities of ammo, access to certain items of electronic equipment or what heavy weapons can be taken

3. Do you prevent players starting with APCs or other armoured vehicles so that it is more meaningful when they do manage to recover them in game (though this may exacerbate the obsession with recovering vehicles that some players have).

I welcome any suggestions.

Thanks,

Mahatatain.

[Legbreaker]

How much is allowed characters is up to the GM. If the background is similar to the end of the 5th ID when everyone loaded up everything they could and fled, then great, full allocation!
If on the other hand the PCs start out on the run, as prisoners, shipwrecked, etc, then they should consider themselves luck to have half a box of matches and a pen knife!

Vehicles in T2K, especially armour, are always going to be valuable. They provide mobility and protection, as well as a load carrying capacity and level of firepower simply impossible for leg mobile or even horse mounted groups. While from time to time vehicles will be lost, it has to be expected that characters will go to extraordinary lengths to recover what may well be the difference between death and survival in a hostile world.

Even a simple unarmoured civilian car could be considered valuable in an environment where most complicated machinery has broken down or been damaged/destroyed by EMP. Think of the reaction in the War of the Worlds movie from a couple of years ago - people were willing to kill for a working car. Another movie example would be the Mad Max movies. if you have working transport, you've got a huge advantage over everyone else.

[Marc]

Well, I suppose that all this questions will depend on your planned initial situation of the group and, of course, your own personal criteria. The type of characters will be important, too. In general terms, my personal tendency would be to answer affirmatively to all of the three questions asked by you. I"m a little stingy with my players in the first games. But I have my reasons.

One important reason is pragmatism. If some of the players are newbies with the Twilight rules, I prefer to start with the basic equipment before entering in more complicated aspects of the game. The same could be said about the referre. If you are eager to begin a new game but you are not well familiarized with the rules regarding vehicle combat and maintenance, make a first session as confortable as you can, for you and your players.

Another reason is a kind of Dungeons and Dragons syndrome. I know I"m not being realistic but in a game without levels, magic items or poweful spells, equipment and supplies are a good reward. And a reward demands a previous work. I like to put them in a miserable initial situation...

One important consideration is the type of characters. Every character will be defined with time by his/her player. But in the first sessions, certain equipment helps to define the character (the sniper, the machinegunner, the driver, the sapper). If your expert driver has nothing to drive the experience for he player can be frustrating. So, at least, give them what they need to start doing what they know to do.

Anyway, most probably if you give them all what they want and you are strict with the rules, they will have a true logistical nightmare...

[kato13]

For me equipment = options. I want my players to have the tools to get the job done, fewer PCs will probably need more equipment to do that. If I have a very small group of players they will inevitably get more equipment from me, if I have a larger group I will probably give them significantly less equipment per man. To be honest the same goes for skills.

[Wereferret]

This topic is pretty timely, I'm looking at starting my first T2K campaign here myself and after play-testing the initial game out with a friend we were wrestling with this same question.

My thought is, if they go for the 5th ID scenario (the terrible events in Poland recently open up a plausible alternate timeline for events spinning out of control that allows the T2K scenarios to convert almost lock, stock and barrel, though this would pit Poland vs. Russia) then sure, give them the whole $35k worth of gear...they're still going to need a vehicle to carry it all. I suspect that they're going to be making hard decisions about what to keep and what to leave behind in relatively short order once that Humvee or Bradley breaks down or runs out of gas.

The alternative I'm going to offer is for them to build characters that more or less reflect 'themselves' in real life, and will take on a more survivialist tone as they attempt to escape Seattle as an Emergency Broadcast announces that nukes are on the way. They get 30 minutes or so to grab what they can and get outta dodge. Has anyone had any luck running this sort of scenario with the T2K rules How did it work out for you The 'sandbox' rules for foraging and encounters seem to lend itself well for this, though I need to get a lot more comfortable with the rules before starting.

[pmulcahy11b]

I like and agree with that "equipment = options" philosophy. The PCs are fighting an uphill battle, even if they are just trying to survive; they have also survived a cataclysmic war, so they have probably done better than your average dead person at acquiring and maintaining equipment.

It also makes the PCs, from the GMs point of view, a more viable target. You can put a sort of "gunslinger syndrome" into things; the PCs are a more visible target simply because of their success and attract attention in the form of bigger and badder enemies, and they will acquire a following (or simply jobs or help) from people interested in their protection.

And for game continuity, new equipment and a chance at acquiring more equipment and supplies is a big incentive to keep players interested. If the players get something that's really unusual or interesting, they can become really interested. (It's was the original reason I started statting out new stuff a million years ago, and I was in general the "stat man" when I played D&D as well.) And it also provides the GM an opportunity to cause that equipment and supplies to be depleted or destroyed, giving the players incentive to keep adventuring to replace it. Loss and recovery is a powerful incentive to players.

In T2K, I also prefer a bit more "high-functioning" campaign to one where the players basically have dirt and are thankful for it. It's just more interesting to me. A "dirt" game is an interesting diversion from time to time, but not something I'd want to play as a campaign. That's a personal bias, I know.

[Mahatatain]

How much is allowed characters is up to the GM. If the background is similar to the end of the 5th ID when everyone loaded up everything they could and fled, then great, full allocation!
If on the other hand the PCs start out on the run, as prisoners, shipwrecked, etc, then they should consider themselves luck to have half a box of matches and a pen knife!

I quite agree that everything is up to the GM"s decision but my concern is that the rules as written are extremely generous.

The first campaign I ran was the Free City of Krakow/Pirates of the Vistula/Ruins of Warsaw campaign using 1st Ed rules back in 1989. The campaign was great fun but I played the rules straight and the players had so much cash between them that they had trouble spending it all. The result was that they transported around thousands of rounds and other gear and never really ran low on things, even after they donated significant amounts of ammo to the allies they made in Warsaw.

One of the main bits of feedback I got from the players of that campaign was that they felt that they had far too much ammo as they never had a make a decision about whether firing was just a waste of ammo. Essentially they never felt like they were in danger of running out of ammo or that they had supply problems of any kind, despite the fact that they were cut off from their parent units. In fact their only headache was the logistics of transporting all the gear around that they had mostly started with and never used.

My concern is therefore that if you have a starting situation similar to the 5th ID collapse that when the player characters load up on everything that they end up making the game less interesting to play for themselves.

For the second campaign I ran I therefore stripped back the amount of gear that I let the players start with quite drastically and the players told me that they preferred that a lot, though I had concerns that I was too harsh with my limiting of their equipment. Hence my questions here.

Well, I suppose that all this questions will depend on your planned initial situation of the group and, of course, your own personal criteria. The type of characters will be important, too. In general terms, my personal tendency would be to answer affirmatively to all of the three questions asked by you. I"m a little stingy with my players in the first games. But I have my reasons.

One important reason is pragmatism. If some of the players are newbies with the Twilight rules, I prefer to start with the basic equipment before entering in more complicated aspects of the game. The same could be said about the referre. If you are eager to begin a new game but you are not well familiarized with the rules regarding vehicle combat and maintenance, make a first session as confortable as you can, for you and your players.

Another reason is a kind of Dungeons and Dragons syndrome. I know I"m not being realistic but in a game without levels, magic items or poweful spells, equipment and supplies are a good reward. And a reward demands a previous work. I like to put them in a miserable initial situation...

One important consideration is the type of characters. Every character will be defined with time by his/her player. But in the first sessions, certain equipment helps to define the character (the sniper, the machinegunner, the driver, the sapper). If your expert driver has nothing to drive the experience for he player can be frustrating. So, at least, give them what they need to start doing what they know to do.

Anyway, most probably if you give them all what they want and you are strict with the rules, they will have a true logistical nightmare...

Well the game I"m planning will be an online game so the logistical nightmare will probably be mine! <G>

I"m also hoping for a core of experienced players so I shouldn"t be suffering from problems with people new to the rules.

However I"m inclined to be stingy as it is easier to give them gear later rather than try to find ways of taking it away. Using equipment as a sort of reward may feel a bit D&Dish but it works as a mechanic in the game if handled right.

I think that you make a very good point about frustrating players by denying them equipment that is important to their role. Part of that comes from what characters you permit during character generation oe for example be careful allowing a PC Helicopter Pilot if you have no intention of letting the PC ever get near a helicopter. Some players won"t mind that but others will find that extremely frustrating as you said!

For me equipment = options. I want my players to have the tools to get the job done, fewer PCs will probably need more equipment to do that. If I have a very small group of players they will inevitably get more equipment from me, if I have a larger group I will probably give them significantly less equipment per man. To be honest the same goes for skills.

While I agree with you in principle the danger here is that the PCs gear up for any eventuality and so end up with the problem I"ve encountered. If they players have a base and a reasonable level of supply then being able to obtain the required equipment for a particular mission works but if you"re playing the classic soldiers cut off behind enemy lines type of scenario then the temptation for players is to load up their vehicles with as much gear as they can afford to buy in an attempt to cover every eventuality.

My thought is, if they go for the 5th ID scenario (the terrible events in Poland recently open up a plausible alternate timeline for events spinning out of control that allows the T2K scenarios to convert almost lock, stock and barrel, though this would pit Poland vs. Russia) then sure, give them the whole $35k worth of gear...they're still going to need a vehicle to carry it all. I suspect that they're going to be making hard decisions about what to keep and what to leave behind in relatively short order once that Humvee or Bradley breaks down or runs out of gas.

If you go for this option then the key is to force the players to keep moving so that they have to consider abandoning equipment. When I first ran a scenario like this I made the mistake of letting the players rest too often to replenish their fuel stocks, allowing them to keep all of their vehicles and therefore their capability to transport all of their equipment.

I like and agree with that "equipment = options" philosophy. The PCs are fighting an uphill battle, even if they are just trying to survive; they have also survived a cataclysmic war, so they have probably done better than your average dead person at acquiring and maintaining equipment.

It also makes the PCs, from the GMs point of view, a more viable target. You can put a sort of "gunslinger syndrome" into things; the PCs are a more visible target simply because of their success and attract attention in the form of bigger and badder enemies, and they will acquire a following (or simply jobs or help) from people interested in their protection.

I think that you have a good point regarding survivors being good at acquiring and maintaining equipment but I would say that a campaign where the PCs have become a more visible target because of their success and ownership of better equipment is one where the PCs are probably static in one location. The campaign I"m planning is going to involve keeping on the move so though I agree with you it shouldn"t be an issue in my campaign. Essentially I think that that is more relevant to a survivors type campaign setting where PCs are trying to defend/restore order/etc.

In T2K, I also prefer a bit more "high-functioning" campaign to one where the players basically have dirt and are thankful for it. It's just more interesting to me. A "dirt" game is an interesting diversion from time to time, but not something I'd want to play as a campaign. That's a personal bias, I know.

I think that you"ve just highlighted a key aspect of the campaign I"m setting up oe my preference is to run campaigns where players are struggling for equipment and so I need to make that clear when I start recruiting players.

Vehicles in T2K, especially armour, are always going to be valuable. They provide mobility and protection, as well as a load carrying capacity and level of firepower simply impossible for leg mobile or even horse mounted groups. While from time to time vehicles will be lost, it has to be expected that characters will go to extraordinary lengths to recover what may well be the difference between death and survival in a hostile world.

Even a simple unarmoured civilian car could be considered valuable in an environment where most complicated machinery has broken down or been damaged/destroyed by EMP. Think of the reaction in the War of the Worlds movie from a couple of years ago - people were willing to kill for a working car. Another movie example would be the Mad Max movies. if you have working transport, you've got a huge advantage over everyone else.

Returning to the vehicles discussion (I should have started two separate threads!) my concern here is that players start to value vehicles over the lives of people. Your comments make the basic assumption that people have lost a degree of humanity to the point where they are prepared to act like they do in the War of the World movie and in the second Mad Max movie.

Now that works if you"re playing a survivalist type scenario but if your PCs are part of a military unit do you really think that that is the case While all soldiers will appreciate the value of an armoured vehicle I would have thought that they would have valued human life above that of a vehicle and wouldn"t have been prepared to sacrifice a member of their unit in order to recover a vehicle. Now part of this can be put down to faceless NPC syndrome where the loss of a couple of NPCs to recover a damaged vehicle doesn"t really matter to some players but I think that many players over value vehicles in the T2k setting.

In addition I"d say that a survivalist type scenario where a PC is prepared to sacrifice someone to recover a vehicle is a fair dark game. Not unbelievable at all but certainly dark in aspect. It may be that I prefer T2k games where the PCs are trying to retain their humanity to some degree and see the sacrifice of someone"s life for a vehicle as a mistake.

[Mahatatain]

Sorry - I forgot to say that my real question (I suppose) is whether anyone has simply halved PCs starting cash or something similar as a simple mechanic to alter character generation when you want PCs to start with less equipment

[Wereferret]

This is a great discussion. Now that we know that Loren Wiseman checks this forum occasionally, I'd be interested in hearing his insight on how they arrived at the initial allocation schedule for players in the rules, and what philosophy guided it.

[Raellus]

First, you have to decide how much gear you want your PCs to have. Once you've made that decision, you can figure out how to slant the quantity and quality of starting gear to suit your prefense.

I prefer a "gear-lite" party. In my experience, it makes encounters more suspensful and intense. If a party with a Tankbreaker, three or four LAWs, and a M2 Bradley with TOW IIs encounters a T-72, there's not much suspense. If the party only has small arms and maybe one RPG rocket, it's a much more challenging fight. Also, if the party starts out "gear-lite", winning fights and capturing gear is much more rewarding.

Once you decide whether you want your players well or poorly equiped, you can lower their starting cash and/or prohibit the purchase of certain stuff. When I started my PoV campaign, I allowed players only what they could carry (in terms of personal weapons and equipment) and then gave the group a reduced cash pool with which to purchase party gear. They were then given a menu of HW they could purchase using the pool. They had to debate the merits of each system and come to a consensus as to how the spend the money.

I also often give new players the "either-or" option- i.e. you can have either NVGs OR a radio, but not both. That sort of thing.

It's all about balance.

[Gabe The Gun]

What version of the game are you playing I would not restrict them from any equipment or vehicles. Its going to be hard enough for them to fuel them on a regular basis. Ammo Dont worry about it, let them blow thier load and then you can make it really hard to find more ammo for thier really overpowering weopons, so let them start with them. It might look off right now but youll soon see that it really wont make a difference much. Also you might have ammo but can they hit with it is the question.

[Mahatatain]

I think that this has turned up two distinct approaches to running a T2k game, both of which are valid and both of which will have quite a different feel.

In the end it comes down to what you want to run as a GM and what kind of campaign your players like.

I played for a while in a campaign set in Iran and that was very different with serious amounts of military hardware still operational. It was fun but wasn't something that I'd like to run I think.

Raellus - thanks for the suggestion regarding starting equipment. I was thinking of something along those lines.

[jimbo4795]

In one of the most memorable campaigns I was in, we started out with more vehicles than we knew what to do with. All of them were unarmored but that didn't bother us. We simply filled them up with everything imaginable. We even came across a warehouse of wicker furniture. Picture the 'Beverly Hillbillies' with wicker furniture.

[leonpoi]

I'm in the process of setting up a new T2k campaign and I wanted to check if other people had encountered two problems concerning equipment that I've encountered with games I've either run or played in.

Firstly I've found that player characters start with too much equipment, particularly ammo, and that the campaign has to play for a considerable time to get to a point where they start to think about conserving ammo.

Secondly I've found that some players become obsessed with retaining/recovering armoured vehicles and that they are prepared to take excessive risks to recover them.

My questions are therefore:

1. When setting up a campaign do you allow the full $ allocation of starting equipment to each player or do you restrict it in some way For example only allowing half the $ value

2. Do you limit player's access to certain items of equipment during character creation For example limited quantities of ammo, access to certain items of electronic equipment or what heavy weapons can be taken

3. Do you prevent players starting with APCs or other armoured vehicles so that it is more meaningful when they do manage to recover them in game (though this may exacerbate the obsession with recovering vehicles that some players have).

I welcome any suggestions.

Thanks,

Mahatatain.

I agree that players start with way too much money - we had players struggling to spend their cash. We found that it took away from the survival feeling so we actually agreed to restart the campaign with less equipment.

We did 2 things.
1. rework how much stuff players can start with according to some house rules (equipment dice are used instead - from tw2k13 - and money is 1/10th the core game):

http://sites.google.com/site/leonpoitw2k/Home/files/Equipment.pdfattredirects=0&d=1

2. not give players full fuel - (ethanol). I don't normally give them full ammo, especially large calibre (which I normally give them none - but they can buy it themselves) - these changes are also included in the document in the link above

We now come to the problem of characters hoarding dozens of ak74s from fallen enemies to barter with. Weight stops a lot of that. I also have barter value attached to Availability (the core rules actually already has this so does several modules).

[Raellus]

We now come to the problem of characters hoarding dozens of ak74s from fallen enemies to barter with. Weight stops a lot of that. I also have barter value attached to Availability (the core rules actually already has this so does several modules).

I struggle with the same thing. Even when I create conditions that I think will lead to the abandonment of captured gear, my players still manage to keep most of it. Their efforts have gone a long way to equipping a friendly local militia.