4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Raellus]

Language as a New Skill

I like your ranking idea, Claidheamh. It might be worthwhile to make Language its own skill (under the Intelligence attribute), with D through A levels indicating levels of proficiency. This would relegate the Linguist specialty to attempts to pass as a native speaker, but that's pretty much how it's currently written in the rules anyway.

In line with Heffe's reasoning, I've always given PCs at least very rudimentary language skills for whatever campaign setting we're using as a matter of course, as long as the PC has spent more than a few months there before the IG action starts. As I've been thinking about this topic, I remembered a reason besides osmosis to continue this practice.

In WW2 (and other 20th century wars, I am sure), US troops were issued with small, basic French phrase books before the D-Day landings. They contained not only touristy words and phrases (e.g. "May I use the bathroom, please"), but some martial ones as well (e.g. "Where are the German soldiers"). It stands to reason that the DoD would issue similar Polish phrase books as soon as the fighting moves into Poland*. These would have been issued up to the start of nuclear warfare, at least. PCs could either "buy" this item as part of their starting equipment, or find it during scrounging (something similar could be in the 4e loot tables already).

Access to a basic phrase booklet and exposure to / immersion in the local culture would give US troops in Poland (or wherever) for more than a few months would allow for very basic proficiency in Polish. Think of it as the PC being able to use and understand simple phrases that one might find in an average travel guide (e.g. "Where is the bathroom.").

So, "translating" these principles into skill levels could look something like this:

D- Exposure to local language = beginner (e.g. yes, no, please, thank you)
C- "" plus access to store-bought or G.I. phrase book for local language = basic grasp (Excuse me. Where is the library)
B- "" plus immersion in local culture (i.e. frequent practice using local language) = proficient
A- all of the above = fluent
Linguist [specialty] = fluent and native-like pronunciation

*IMHO, it would be perfectly reasonable to extend these suppositions to other national military forces (e.g. the BAEF) or campaign settings (e.g. Sweden).

-

[Heffe]

I think you're on to something with those skill levels, Rae - that feels appropriate and matches the schema of FL's other skills. It's still abstracted, but better represents how learning languages works in real life.

Translated to real life I'd be a D in German (used to be a C), a C in Spanish, and being my native language, I'd have an A and linguist specialty in English.

[Claidheamh]

Language as a Skill

I like your ranking idea, Claidheamh. It might be worthwhile to make Language its own skill (under the Intelligence attribute), with D through A levels indicating levels of proficiency. This would relegate the Linguist specialty to attempts to pass as a native speaker, but that's pretty much how it's currently written in the rules anyway.

I'm hesitant to add a new formal skill into the 4e system, since it disrupts the simplicity of the 12 skills in the RaW, and new skill ranks are handed out pretty carefully in the rules. But I do like the A-D rank structure, as it keeps the nomenclature consistent (my gaming group is a mix of casual gamers who want easy to understand rules and a few hardcore nerds who will break down every part of the rules themselves).

If you're going with languages as a new skill, I'd put it under EMP, since that seems to be where all interpersonal skills live.

In WW2 (and other 20th century wars, I am sure), US troops were issued with small, basic French phrase books before the D-Day landings. They contained not only touristy words and phrases (e.g. "May I use the bathroom, please"), but some martial ones as well (e.g. "Where are the German soldiers"). It stands to reason that the DoD would issue similar Polish phrase books as soon as the fighting moves into Poland*. These would have been issued up to the start of nuclear warfare, at least. PCs could either "buy" this item as part of their starting equipment, or find it during scrounging (something similar could be in the 4e loot tables already).

Access to a basic phrase booklet and exposure to / immersion in the local culture would give US troops in Poland (or wherever) for more than a few months would allow for very basic proficiency in Polish. Think of it as the PC being able to use and understand simple phrases that one might find in an average travel guide (e.g. "Where is the bathroom.").

I completely agree that most troops would easily get the basics of communication in Polish, German (and maybe Czech or Russian), I plan to make it easy for a PC to choose basic competence (Rank "C") in a language or two, more skill will require a larger investment at creation time. I offer the ability to have Rank D, for those PCs who decide that they have relied completely on the tried and true American communication method of speaking English more loudly and slowly, while waving their hands.

[Heffe]

Hah! That's great, Claidheamh. Agreed that it should probably live under EMP somehow.

As a suggestion, perhaps a die roll during character creation in order to determine if other languages are known at level C (or above) and how many, but the die results would vary by nation of origin. For example:

American character
1-3: No additional languages
4-5: 1 additional language
6: 2 additional languages

German character
1: 1 additional language
2-4: 2 additional languages
5-6: 3 additional languages

[Raellus]

Other Direction

I'm hesitant to add a new formal skill into the 4e system, since it disrupts the simplicity of the 12 skills in the RaW, and new skill ranks are handed out pretty carefully in the rules.

If you're going with languages as a new skill, I'd put it under EMP, since that seems to be where all interpersonal skills live.

I understand your hesitation re adding a new skill. Maybe we should consider a simpler alternative than adding new mechanics. How about sticking to the rules and just rolling against EMP It's already SOP in 4e (from p. 44 in the PM: "If you don't have a level in the skill you're using, just roll one for the attribute."), so nothing new there. Without a language skill (which doesn't exist in the base rules), a PC would only be rolling the attribute die, so there'd be less chance of success than rolling a pair of dice (1 for attribute + 1 for skill). The slight tweak is this: the Ref can add or subtract multipliers based on the circumstances (which is already a feature of the base rules). For example:

1.) The NPC has a strong regional accent That's -1.
2.) The NPC uses complex technical jargon That's -1.
3.) For both of the above, it would be -2.)
4.) The NPC speaks slowly and uses small words That's +1.

etc.

This would add a little realism without really complicating the rules, as written. Every PC can at least attempt to communicate in another language (based on their EMP score alone). PCs with higher EMP would have a better chance of making themselves understood. Circumstances could make attempts at communicating in another language easier or more difficult, depending on various helpful or complicating factors. It's still abstract, but a little more nuanced this way.

Thoughts

-

[Ursus Maior]

One area in which I think the 4e rules fall well short is how they handle languages. In 4e, it's pretty much all or nothing. You can either speak a language very well, or you can't speak it at all. The only wiggle room in the rules as written in the Nationality (Languages) subsection of the Character Creation chapter. It states (paraphrasing here) that everyone speaks a little English, and that Warsaw Pact personnel all speak a little Russian.

-

That also bugged me endlessly and it's extremely unrealistic especially for European native who underwent compulsory language trainings in multiple languages during school and thus usually remembered a couple of words, but wouldn't be native in any language but their own.

Hence we extended the rules on languages and all characters speak their native tongue plus some English or Russian (as per the rules) and then 1 additional language per level in Intelligence above D. This is meant to reflect school education and proficiency in these languages is meant to be on a "working" level.

[Claidheamh]

More on Languages

I understand your hesitation re adding a new skill. Maybe we should consider a simpler alternative than adding new mechanics. How about sticking to the rules and just rolling against EMP It's already SOP in 4e (from p. 44 in the PM: "If you dont have a level in the skill youre using, just roll one for the attribute."), so nothing new there. Without a language skill (which doesn't exist in the base rules), a PC would only be rolling the attribute die, so there'd be less chance of success than rolling a pair of dice (1 for attribute + 1 for skill). The slight tweak is this: the Ref can add or subtract multipliers based on the circumstances (which is already a feature of the base rules). For example:

1.) The NPC has a strong regional accent That's -1.
2.) The NPC uses complex technical jargon That's -1.
3.) For both of the above, it would be -2.)
4.) The NPC speaks slowly and uses small words That's +1.

etc.

This would add a little realism without really complicating the rules, as written. Every PC can at least attempt to communicate in another language (based on their EMP score alone). PCs with higher EMP would have a better chance of making themselves understood. Circumstances could make attempts at communicating in another language easier or more difficult, depending on various helpful or complicating factors. It's still abstract, but a little more nuanced this way.

Thoughts

-

Raellus - I think this is a good, simple way of resolving communications, and it fits with the RaW pretty well (esp the emphasis on bonus / penalties). I may still tweak my character creation a bit, since I'm house ruling a set of 'points' for players to fudge a dice roll or start with additional equipment, and I might figure out how to add language to that list as well.

Ursus - I agree that the character creation rules don't deal with school based training realistically (at least as I understand them). I can say that US based language training is pretty crappy unless you live in an area where you need to exist bilingually.

[Claidheamh]

Scout Specialization

Mucked around with character creation some with 2 players who'll be in my upcoming campaign, and I noticed that "Scout" is not available as a specialization in any Military career - it's only available to Police, Criminal, and Intelligence career paths. This seems 'off' to me, I think it should at least be available in the Military : At War path.

Thoughts

[Raellus]

Recon RETCON

That omission seems odd. Scout isn't even a specialty listed under the Operator archetype, which doesn't make sense because the raison d'etre of many special operations forces is long-range reconnaissance (i.e. scouting). IMHO, there's a much stronger case for military characters to have Scout as a specialty than for criminals and law enforcement characters.

For Archetype PCs, there's nothing in the rules that says players can't select Scout as a specialty, although it's not listed under the "recommended options".

As for Lifepath PCs, as a Ref I would house rule that Scout is an available selection for "operators" and "grunts", if not all military builds.

-

[Tegyrius]

I think you're running into the limitations of a lifepath system built on a very small number of d6 tables.

- C.

[leonpoi]

I think that is probably true. I wouldn't mind changing them to d8 tables - I started but never finished

[Ursus Maior]

I think you're running into the limitations of a lifepath system built on a very small number of d6 tables.

- C.

If FL aims at further developing that product line - of which I'm not certain, as I see more of a broad and less a deep approach in their product line - I'd wish fore a refurbishment of their character generation. Something that gives us more options and wider tables.

[Raellus]

Oracle Question

I'm not mathematically minded so when questions of probability come up, I lack confidence, and fear making the wrong call.

Should I shuffle the deck of playing cards I use for an "Oracle" for my solo campaign after each draw, or should I run through the entire deck before reshuffling

If I was only drawing to ask Yes/No questions, or determine if something was Helpful or Hazardous, then running through the entire deck would guarantee a 50-50 split across 52 draws, and that doesn't seem particularly realistic. But then what about the law of averages

I'm drawing from the same deck when using the other tables (NPC Motivations, Settlement Problem and Attitude, and Further Elements) in the solo rules as well, so that complicates the Yes/No & Helpful/Hazardous probability issue.

I hope this question makes sense. As I said before, my number sense is not very good.

-

[kcdusk]

If I was only drawing to ask Yes/No questions, or determine if something was Helpful or Hazardous, then running through the entire deck would guarantee a 50-50 split across 52 draws, and that doesn't seem particularly realistic. But then what about the law of averages

-

I'd argue that guaranteeing a 50/50 ye/no outcome over 52 draws was Ok.

Perhaps flip a coin for yes/nos to remove the cards issue

Thinking about this more, and something i haven't done myself but am now thinking i might do it for my own solo campaign. I'm considering shuffling the random encounter deck after each encounter.

Why Because who says you can't run into back to back military patrols Or civilian hunters Or bad weather over two consecutive days In fact i'd argue this makes more sense not to remove the card, not less. Further, if you have an encounter and put the card aside - then you know you won't have to deal with that "encounter issue" again, which removes from the game.

So while i have not answered your question, i think i am going to shuffle the random encounter deck and improve my game because of it.

[Raellus]

Modifying Skill Rolls

Here's a brief scenario. The PCs are planning to ambush an enemy convoy. Since it's a "group ambush" (technically, it's waylaying), I have to roll an opposed Recon check for the PC with the lowest Recon score. That PC does not have the Recon skill (F). For skill rolls involving Recon, this PC can only roll their attribute base die which, in this case, is C. The whole party spends a shift preparing to waylay the convoy, earning a +3 modifier to the Recon roll.

In this scenario, how do I step up the base die There's only one base die to start off with- the Attribute. The rules instruct players to balance their die whenever adding or subtracting modifiers.

Do I:

Step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), and B to A (+2) then stop, as there's no second base die (the non-existent skill) to step up

OR

Do I step up the Attribute base die from C to B (+1). Then step up the Skill base die from F (non-existent) to D (+2), then raise it again to C (+3), so that the two base dice are close to balanced

OR

Do I step up the Attribute from C to B (+1), then step it up again to A (+2) and then raise the skill F to D (+3)

-