Ops and Tactics Thread: Character sheets are coming Edition

File: Ops and Tactics Core Rulebook 6th Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283559
>Core Rulebook
Says what it is on the tin. This is the main game that has all of the stats for rolling characters, making characters, equipment, skills, feats, checks ect.

Now with none of the fucked up tables!

Download this if you like guns.

File: Ops and Tactics Advanced Arms 6th Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283589
>Advanced arms

Advanced arms is my take on futuristic stuff. Had a lot of help with the Oatscrew making this, so shout out to you guys.

It's got plasguns, lasguns, plasma blades, and a host of other new fun weapons and things to mess with.

And just like the core rulebook, it has a very detailed gunsmithing rules for making plasarms, lasarms, and plasma blades.

There's also a very intresting space ship building/combat system that is sort of like a little minigame. More likely than not you can construct your favorite spaceship.

File: Ops and Tactics Modern Magika 6th Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283612
>Modern Magika

Magic splat book that has some(I like to think, anyway) intresting spin on the "fantasy races", as well as how magic is, performed and such. There's also psionics which does pretty much what you expect, and Incantations, which is shadow magic where you create things, summons, ect.

There's also magical equipment in it as well, and black powder guns to enchant with magic, as you can't enchant regular cased and shelled guns with magic, just their cases.

>Briefer on magic

Magic is tied into the skill system, thereby freeing up any other melee/ranged combat the character would like to do. Even though it is a skill, it's by no means weak and can be taken and uses on it's own without devoting to ranged or melee combat. If you wanted to. But you don't have to.

File: Ops and Tactics Field Identification Manual 6th Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283636
>Field ID Guide

The monster Manual! I didn't write this! Two of the oatscrews who goes by the name of Craft and Colt wrote this! It's good! Read it! There's stuff to kill in it!

Also there's a FID2 that's coming out when Kandai(The Setting book) gets released. It's gonna have more things to kill!

File: Simplified Quick Action Tactics System 1st Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283658
>Simplified quick action tactics system, AKA SQuATS

A cut down version of Ops and Tactics that only uses D6s, that I wrote in response to people not wanting to bother with the monstrous core rulebook. Self contained. Can be played without any of the other books(And must, since it's completely incompatible due to the D6 only thing)

It's not terrible(I wouldn't play it), but it is very cut down and very "Go to combat now".

File: Ops and Tactics Procedural Weapons 6th Edition.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51283697
>Procedural weapons

Something written on a dare. It basically allows you to procedurally generate guns of any kind. Requires a lot of D100s. Feel free too roll it here.

Great for borderlands games, if that's your thing.

Also not restricted to ops and Tactics(Technically), since it rolls actual calibers/actions and such. You could feasibly convert a weapon rolled here to another system.

And now we play the waiting game.

Kind of sad, I used to get trolls all the time.

It's based on d20 so it sucks even though I not only never played it but also don't understand any of the design principles behind it. :^)

t. every cocksucker in these threads ever

>>51283804
>It's based on d20 so it sucks even though I not only never played it but also don't understand any of the design principles behind it. :^)

>t. every cocksucker in these threads ever

10/10 Would laugh again.

Rolled 27 (1d100)

As usual...
>>51283724
Firearm type

Rolled 1 (1d2)

>>51283981
Personal defense weapon.
Form factor

Rolled 11, 42 = 53 (2d100)

>>51284006
Machine Pistol.
Action and magazine type

Rolled 67, 96 = 163 (2d100)

>>51284034
Open Bolt, Box magazine.
Rate of fire and ammo capacity

Rolled 70, 48 = 118 (2d100)

>>51284062
Semiautomatic/3-round-burst/fully automatic, 40 round capacity in the magazines.
Size and caliber

>>51284109
That's not bad.

Rolled 53, 62 = 115 (2d100)

>>51284109
Medium size, 9x19mm.
Range and Error Range

Rolled 24, 53 = 77 (2d100)

>>51284194
40' range increment, 0% error range.
Upgrade points and standard equipment

>>51284210
Frame and Barrel upgrade points, two empty magazines.

So to sum up, we've got a Medium open bolt machine pistol chambered in 9x19mm, capable of single shots, three-round bursts, and fully-auto fire. It comes with two 40-round box magazines, has a 40' range increment, and no inherent error range. The frame and barrel can be upgraded.

Nifty.

>19 replies
>3 unique posters

Just give up, making the thread over and over won't change anything

>>51284836
Never!

A bump before bed I suppose.

Bumpero because interest.

Also sell me on Ops & Tactics

>>51286961
The biggest selling point for me is the combat points, really. They're basically time units with a different name. You don't only get to decide between 'move and attack, attack and move, move and move, full attack', you get to fill each of your turns with movement, attacks, other actions, whatever you need to do. Can be a bit slow until you're used to it, but it makes each round of combat much, much more interesting in my opinion. Also means you can have more possible actions because the action granularity is a lot higher.

Past that, I enjoy the equipment and sheer amount of guns. I'm not going to use all of the guns. I'm not going to use half or even a third of those guns, probably, but I enjoy the fact that they're there. If I ever have a player who wants a deagle-brand deagle I don't have to homebrew something, just read its statline. If I ever need a jap with a Nambu to duel him, sure, why not. Past that, the fact that armor provides DR along with defense bonuses, and can be layered, and can be tricked out all tacticool with pouches for arrows and knives and crayons and ammo, is fun.

On the note of DR, the fact that the bullet is what determines a gun's damage instead of how big and scary the gun is is nice.

The two splats are neat, and while the magic takes another layer of bookeeping the fact that I can mix and match it in is great.

That's the two cents off the top of my head, at least.

>>51283559
Bloody hell.
Ive been looking for something to run a more modern campaign- Im cool with Gurps but that could just be the Aspergers talking- I was thinking of D20 modern but reading it hurt.

Ive only gave this a cursory glance but so far looks EXACTLY what ive been wanting out of a system.

Great work- gonna show this to me dad/dm and his friend (Whom is /K as fuck) and see about getting something together.

Bumping for interest.
Fuck d20 modern.

>>51283724
Still no way to determine how many barrels my shotgun has, I tried to pin you down when you visited the /SoS/ thread about a week ago.

Would love to get into this and make a game session.
I really don't like the dice 20 but there so much love and effort I simply can't pass this up.
At worse I'll just switch back to gurps.

File: 1429152558747.gif (2MB, 266x201px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 266x201px

>>51289425
Looking at it, I think you can just assume all shotguns are single barrel unless they're break-action, in which case the ammo capacity would determine how many barrels it has, yeah?

>>51289514
As someone not well versed in firearms I feel that should be explicit, barrel numbers aren't brought up till the upgrade section. It confused me so I think it could easily confuse someone else.

>>51289616
Yeah that's perfectly fair, I was just looking to see if there was any way to puzzle it out or if it was an actual hole.

>>51288249
Fuck D20 Modern.

>>51287229
Enjoy, Anon!

>>51289425
>>51289616

I'll make it more explicit in the oncomming version. But yes, as >>51289514 said. Unless your shotgun is break action, it has one barrel.

This is...surprisingly good. I kind of want to run a game of this. Definitely enjoy the firearms rules, calibers actually matter. I dig it.

>>51287125
Those are the things that turn me off to the system. Any combat system that counts ticks, whatever the system chooses to call them, is going to take way too long, and the variety of guns is pretty autistic and pointless, kind of like the variety of polearms in old-school D&D. The slight variations between guns of essentially the same type don't make nearly enough of a difference at the table to warrant all that bookkeeping.

File: Cm3h2kn.jpg?1.jpg (67KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x1280px

>>51290368
Combat can be pretty slow, yeah. I ran a game with the system for a year, so I know it's definitely a bookkeeping burden for GM and player alike. As for the number of guns, I personally don't mind having loads of weapons I'll probably never use, and would rather have them there than not, but that's a matter of taste yeah.

I do think that the extra density and action of a combat round is worth the extra time taken to resolve it, but personal taste again.

>>51290368
Try Squats.

>>51290368
Thats heresy.

As someone who used to memorise real gun stats as a hobby, i can tell you that every single gun has something differernt about it. Thats called engineering patents. They cant really all copy one another and dont even want to. They want their own niche market. Even browning style pistols and polymer 9mms have something different about them. This is ops and tactics son. This is what the game is about.

File: 1483768755843.jpg (158KB, 1004x1200px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1004x1200px

I really want to try this game out, but i already have 1 game a week and thats enough...

Anyone want a Co-GM?

>>51291274
This

File: ak fairy.jpg (197KB, 574x860px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 574x860px

>>51291274
Speaking of autism, I've been working on organizing the game's guns by cartridge and price in the hopes of eventually releasing it as a PDF here. Thus far I've gotten through about half the pistol cartridges, got bored, then skipped them and got through the light and intermediate rifle cartridges. With O&T anon's permission, I'd like to release the tables when they're completed in the next 30 years or so.

Also panning out a campaign based on Metal Gear Solid 2, with the players as Gurlukovich mercs intent on enforcing the game's hostage situation. Would having them start with a choice of two starting weapons (AK-74SU or AN-94, like in the game) be too limiting?

>>51293610
SEE? FAIRIES WITH GUNS! I told you about them Bro

>>51293610
Best to let the players choose their own guns. But tell them they're soviet block weapons. (AN-94s arnt even sold to the civilians. However that doesnt mean you shouldnt let your players have them ;) Also AN-94s are unreliable in the extreme, sadly. Im also assuming you know about their two round burst function. Rather than hurr AK with plastic durr.

I'd like to be a Co-GM but i kinda want more poetic licence with the story rather than sticking to a game...

>>51293733
I definitely know about the AN-94's action. The reason I went with them is that the AN-94 and AKS-74U are the assault rifles the mercs used in MGS2. And the players are mercenaries so licensing/selling is not a problem. I might add a little more choice, but I want to keep things simple, especially considering it'd be the first time for everyone involved.

Not to be rude, but have you ever played or seen MGS2?

What benefit does this system have over, say, Twilight 2000? If I wanted to do an actual military-on-military game (and not military-on-insurgents/mercs/etc) would Ops and Tactics still hold up, and be able to represent actual large conflicts well? I'm genuinely curious, thanks.

Going through the tables for my project, and I noticed the L85A1 and L85A2 have 30% error ranges. That's some heavy shit; care to explain?

>>51293786
Nah, i never finished it. Good luck anyway.

>>51294827
Fair enough. Thanks for the advice anyway.

>>51294790
I can sort of understand it for the A1, but why the A2? As far as ive heard the A2 solves all of the reliability problems, which means its as least as reliable as a DI system, plus it has epic accuracy in line with the mastercraft weapon +1 bonus. Its main flaw is weight.

>>51294939
Not from what I'm reading. Their stat blocks and descriptions are completely identical. The only way I can justify it is a copy-paste error or some other kind of typo.

>>51283559
Thanks for your hard work. I plan running this system with my more literate players.

File: tkIsU2L.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>51294790
It's worth mentioning that the way error range works changed within the last year or so. The error range itself is rolled at the start of combat to determine if a jam is even possible, and then determines what natural attack rolls will result in a jam in that case.
So for a weapon with a 30% error range, in 30% of all combats it jams ~9.25% of the times its fired (natural 6 or below). It's an extra step, but lets the jam probabilities be a lot more granular than 'the next step up from literally never jams is jams one out of twenty times you pull the trigger'.

No comment as to whether that 30% is appropriate for the L85A1 or if the L85A2's stats are right.

>>51295192
OK. I've just been looking at and sorting the tables for my own personal use; I'll take another look at the actual rules at some point. I have version 6.04 (12/20/2016), so I should be up-to-date.

>>51293898
Easier to play, more approachable. Also yes

>>51293610
Feel free.

>>51295192
It was. I'll have to fix it next version. Until then, give the A2 5% error range.

I would rather play d20 Modern. The guns suck, the mechanics are gay. Spycraft is better, even d20 modern with houserules is better than this pile of trash. I played d20 Modern last weekend. I wonder when the last time was that someone actually played Ops and Tacshits?

>>51296350
Yesterday.

It was a stalker game.

>D20 modern is better

He just threw the fishing pole right in, didn't he.

>>51295192
Yeah, I think the L85A1 and A2 are wrong. 20% for the A1 seems more right from my experience (it doesn't jam but the mags fall out, the sights mist etc), but the A2 fixes all the issues and it is now a very reliable rifle, if not heavy; so should be put down to 0%, just like the M16.

>>51296648
Its not very reliable. Its More reliable that. It used to be. Its probably around 5%.

My source used one for the majority of his military career.

>>51296648
Also doesn't the furniture still break on it?

>>51296708
As has I, 22 years in the army.
But each to their own. I never had any problems with the A2 and neither did my squadies, masses of issues with the A1. As I say, much heavier than other rifles (although its balanced at the rear), but reliable.
No worries, its your game, we'll just agree to disagree here.

>>51296730
Nope. The A2s were shipped to Germany and got completely retooled. The bits about furniture breaking and jams are memes now. The A1 definitely, however as it took about 10 years to get it fixed (and they were fixed in 3 or 4 batches so we had a mixture of A1s and A2s in service) but most people outside of the UK armed forces don't realise the difference and treat them both the same.

>>51296773
I'm willing to notch it down to 0%.

Its not that big of a deal to me.

I am, however, leaving the a1 at 30%.

>>51296610
Explain how your crappy game is better than d20 Modern, then.

Give me one reason to read through 100 pages of autistic rule.

>>51296826
That's totally fine by me and thank-you.

File: breathe-breathe some warpstone gas.jpg (88KB, 943x859px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 943x859px

>>51296914
Hey this is even better than my ironic shitpost... sort of.

>>51296914
Easy.

It doesn't use a d20.

>real answers

Read up. Conscript Gary posted about the combat. That's my real answer. People have posted already.

Honestly if you don't think youll like it don't read it. Continue to play D20 modern. Do what you find fun. I don't care.

>>51295906
Just from a quick glance, it seems to be of relatively similar complexity. Are there any vehicles for Ops and Tactics, or d20m at all for that matter?

>>51297205
Vehicles are narrative. I had hard rules for them but they didn't work. There's a vehicles section in core, use the bookmarks.

There are vehicles for d20m, but they're...odd.

>>51297335
Damn so I can't have T2kesque tank battles? I may try writing up some hard vehicles rules, just to rectify that.

How well would the system handle a more espionage and stealth focused game?

>>51296993
Okay I'm playing d20 modern with 2d10 now. Bam. I just obliterated the entire point of your game.

Do you ever expect this thing to be at all popular or have quality? Or do you just want to circlejerk with the one or two other autistics who have enough sperg in their brain to consider your game a pinnacle of game design? Or maybe they just play it because they feel sorry for you.

So for combat:

> combat points

Are shit, and they extend the discrete nature of D&D-style combat to an even shittier level.

> sheer amount of guns

GURPS High Tech has a ton of guns. The d20 Modern Weapons Locker has something like 500 guns in it. So no, not a selling point.

> On the note of DR, the fact that the bullet is what determines a gun's damage instead of how big and scary the gun is is nice.

d20 modern also did this. It didn't differentiate between 9mm and .45 but that's because of 3rd-edition devs having an aversion to adding in a +1 for damage. Or hell, a d8+d6. Whatever.

> The two splats are neat, and while the magic takes another layer of bookeeping the fact that I can mix and match it in is great.

Literally a non-statement, d20 modern also had magic.

So, again, there is nothing about this game that is better than d20 Modern.

Let's try another angle: how the fuck does your game solve the myriad problems with d20 Modern?

>>51298613
Play Spycraft. It's a better-designed version of OP's shitty heartbreaker of a game.

Okay OP let's take a look at this game:

Let's see, you kept the cross-class skill ranks bullshit from 3.5 that was 90% of why the skill system in that game was intolerable. Since caster supremacy isn't even a factor you have no reason not to adapt the Pathfinder system for skills which was better, or even try to design your own skill system, but you've never played a non-d20 game in your life so you wouldn't know how to do that would you.

You kept the horrible feats with long-ass names that make writing your feats list a goddamn nightmare. Along with tons of useless proficiency feats that were the bane of d20 Modern. Except you made them even worse. You kept in Toughness which was one of the greatest trap feats in the game. You made Weapon Focus a vaguely viable option, which so far is the only bit of quality I've seen. Dodge is still the extra-bookeeping bullshit it was in 3.5, again improved, but instead of just making it like Pathfinder did you had to keep that shit in there.

Your feats are terribly unbalanced and you, like the 3.5 devs, completely fail to understand the metagame of choice and are incapable of optimizing a character in your own game, or else you would consolidate your shitty feats after realizing how shitty they are. The end of your feats section just reinforces the notion that OD&D's age of "the characters are actually competent humans" assumption is long-dead, now you have to have six feats just to be able to do basic adventurer shit like shoot a gun or drive a car at a non- -4 - penalty.

Constitution has no bearing on how much damage it takes to kill you after you go down. Another thing Pathfinder added that i bet you weren't even aware of. You kept the same hit points damage from d20 Modern. So far I am seeing zero difference in this game and d20 modern besides "lol I added loads of gun rules"

You took the shitty parts of d20 system that most people ignored and gave them even more rules to waste paper space.

OP there is no reason why I would play this game when I have the d20 Modern rulebook and the d20 Modern Guns Locker.

You whinge and whine about d20 Modern yet you are yet to show a single concrete reason why yours is better besides "muh 3d6."

If you think using a d20 is d20 system's biggest flaw, your grasp of game design is even more laughable than I thought possible.

You made a big list of guns and a ton of extra rules nobody needs. You stacked even more shit on top of a shit RPG system instead of trying to repair it where it is broken. You tried to diagnose what was wrong with the game and did the equivalent of picking off a pimple when the patient has liver cancer. Then realizing the pimple you picked off, was one of the patient's nipples.

Hey look it's the prophesied arrival of the cocksuckers.

>>51298822
Now that I'm at a computer I can actually address you with a full keyboard.

>Are shit, and they extend the discrete nature of D&D-style combat to an even shittier level.

How the hell do action points make something MORE ddiscrete?

>GURPS High Tech has a ton of guns.
True. No argument against that. And they're functionally different.

>The d20 Modern Weapons Locker has something like 500 guns in it. So no, not a selling point.

The D20 Modern's weapon locker is a literal repeat of the same 6 guns over and over and over again. The only variance between them is the model names. It has no mechanism for actually upgrading your weapon, it has no mechanism for customizing in general, and the weapon damages, in relation to character health and hipoints, are severely mismanaged.

>Literally a non-statement, d20 modern also had magic.

And it was a straight copy paste from D&D. This isn't that.

> how the fuck does your game solve the myriad problems with d20 Modern?

To answer your question I'm going to need you to define exactly what was wrong with D20 Modern. I know what was wrong with it and what I changed. So what did you feel was wrong with it, if anything? Do you want to know what I thought was wrong with D20 Modern, or do you just want a reason to say "i don't like it."

>>51298947
>Since caster supremacy isn't even a factor you have no reason not to adapt the Pathfinder system for skills which was better,

This shows you didn't actually read the game.

>or even try to design your own skill system, but you've never played a non-d20 game in your life so you wouldn't know how to do that would you.

I've read and played gurps for going on 3 years. So yes, I have played non-d20 games.

>You kept the horrible feats with long-ass names that make writing your feats list a goddamn nightmare.

Personal opinion, I can't comment one way or another about it.

>Along with tons of useless proficiency feats that were the bane of d20 Modern.

This shows you didn't actually read the game. Unless you just expect to be able to use every weapon perfectly without any drawbacks whatsoever.

>Except you made them even worse. You kept in Toughness which was one of the greatest trap feats in the game.

This shows you didn't actually read the game. Toughness got a full revisal and is no longer a "Trap feat"


>You made Weapon Focus a vaguely viable option, which so far is the only bit of quality I've seen.

Yay?

>Dodge is still the extra-bookeeping bullshit it was in 3.5, again improved, but instead of just making it like Pathfinder did you had to keep that shit in there

Yeah, It's not pathfinder. is that your complaint? I'm not doing it like pathfinder?

>Your feats are terribly unbalanced and you,

This shows you didn't actually read the game. Please cite how feats are unbalanced. I would like a specific example because there have been brainstorming sessions that literally all we did was look at feats and their balance and relations to one another. So yes, if they are unbalanced? I would like to hear what, how and why.

(Cont)

>>51298947
>like the 3.5 devs, completely fail to understand the metagame of choice and are incapable of optimizing a character in your own game, or else you would consolidate your shitty feats after realizing how shitty they are.

So..the argument is "People will metagame?" I'm not quite sure that's the actual argument. If you could please explain what "Completely failing to understand the metagame of choice" is?

>The end of your feats section just reinforces the notion that OD&D's age of "the characters are actually competent humans" assumption is long-dead, now you have to have six feats just to be able to do basic adventurer shit like shoot a gun or drive a car at a non- -4 - penalty.

This shows you didn't actually read the game. Firstly, you don't need to take any feats, skills or whathave you, to drive a car. Go and read drive.

Secondly, yes, it is not common knowledge or what you call "a competent human" to be able to use weapons and firearms on a normal basis. Using a weapon, is a learned skill. It takes practice. It is not something most people can just pick up and do. That's what a feat represents. I don't know what else to tell you.

>Constitution has no bearing on how much damage it takes to kill you after you go down. Another thing Pathfinder added that i bet you weren't even aware of.

Where? Last time I checked the rules for pathfinder for "Dying" are below"

> On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.


(Cont)

>>51298947
>You kept the same hit points damage from d20 Modern. So far I am seeing zero difference in this game and d20 modern besides "lol I added loads of gun rules"

Another proof you didn't read. Not only are there two kinds of hit points in OaTs, but they behave differently. If you did and I'm indeed wrong, please quote me a page number from the PDF I posted as the second post.

>>51298997
>OP there is no reason why I would play this game when I have the d20 Modern rulebook and the d20 Modern Guns Locker.

Okay.

If you like D20 Modern, play D20 Modern.

>You whinge and whine about d20 Modern yet you are yet to show a single concrete reason why yours is better besides "muh 3d6."

At the very least you can purchase things like a normal person and not have to roll every time you want to buy a box of bullets. Or a jacket. or a stick of gum.

>If you think using a d20 is d20 system's biggest flaw, your grasp of game design is even more laughable than I thought possible.

Hardly. It's the smallest flaw in reality. That's why it was kept for so long in the development cycle.

>You made a big list of guns and a ton of extra rules nobody needs.

I am perfectly fine with that. This ain't about needs.

>You stacked even more shit on top of a shit RPG system instead of trying to repair it where it is broken.

And where was it broken, anon? This isn't me being a smartass. I am legitimately asking what you thought was broken about D20 Modern(if anything) and any possible ways to fix it.

File: sample_2da5d9b09bbb42176be7811b9ef11c0b.jpg (116KB, 850x637px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 850x637px

This is an elf slave wat do thread now OP

>>51299451
>This is an elf slave wat do thread now OP

Cool. Bumps are bumps.

>>51299451
>tfw no post to the new thread topic.

Sadness consumes me.

>>51283589
Question:

Page 14, section 2.2:
>When two or more multipliers apply, combine
them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding to the
value of the original multiplier.
>combine

Are we talking add or multiply here? Because even a 2x and 3x bonus combining varies by X depending on the result; a situation with a 1x(not asking how) and 2x bonus can be exploited if adding.

>>51299832
Adding. a 2x and a 3x would be a 5x.

Also, this /rarely/ happens. Yes it would be a massive thing, but I don't think that I can actually cite a player case where this actually happened.

>>51299451
Breed them with kobolds, obviously

>>51300088
Kobold elves are a thing in Ops and Tactics, actually.

File: 1433702808075.gif (2MB, 349x269px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 349x269px

>>51300556
Oh I know, that's why I said it

File: orange_transparent_chainsaw_by_mk01-d55vbqb (1).jpg (158KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 900x675px

Has this magnificent system stated the OTC?

>>51300983
Unfortunately no.

But you can get a regular chainsaw, and paint it orange. If that counts.

>>51299095
>How the hell do action points make something MORE ddiscrete?

If they give you more actions overall, it's just more of the whole "you do a bunch of shit, then I do a bunch of a shit". Thus "going first" becomes more powerful than it otherwise should be. If it doesn't do that, then it's just an overly complicated system when you cuold just say "you move, you do your action, then some minor actions that shouldn't even matter as actual actions, like switching firing modes".

> The D20 Modern's weapon locker is a literal repeat of the same 6 guns over and over and over again.

And so are yours, minus a few tiny things that will rarely make an actual difference in play.

> And it was a straight copy paste from D&D. This isn't that.

Why do I give a fuck about your magic system? Anyone on /tg/ can come up with a special snowflake magic system. Does it interact with the guns in an interesting way?

> Do you want to know what I thought was wrong with D20 Modern

Yes.

>>51299148
Your feats are shit because a +3 on your attack rolls is superior to unjamming your fucking weapon 10% faster, if that. One of those rolls comes up every turn, sometimes more than once a turn, and one of them comes up every...what? Ten turns? I sure hope not more than that or your turns are total crap.

> Yeah, It's not pathfinder. is that your complaint? I'm not doing it like pathfinder?

You aren't even reading what I'm saying, just cherrypicking things to rage at. But yeah, you should have used the Pathfinder dodge so I don't have to keep track of who I picked to dodge against that turn in addition to the exact angle of the sun and how many bullets are left in my magazine.

> This shows you didn't actually read the game. Toughness got a full revisal and is no longer a "Trap feat"

No, this shows I did read the game, and it's the same old crap it was back in d20. It's a bonus to hp. A flat bonus. Explain how you made it any better, because if so, then you also gave Weapon Focus a "complete revisal" by increasing the bonus. That's not a complete revisal, that's just adding bonus to a shitty feat.

> This shows you didn't actually read the game

You say this over and over yet you then confirm exactly what I just said. Make up your mind.

> Unless you just expect to be able to use every weapon perfectly without any drawbacks whatsoever.

Hmmm maybe something like weapons skills could cover that?

>>51299257
>Using a weapon, is a learned skill. It takes practice.

So is walking, brushing your teeth, and all the other basic shit humans do on a daily basis. I assume I'm playing a leet operator badass in this game, right? I should know how to use these fucking weapons. Even D&D had better handling of weapon proficiency feats than this.

> I don't know what else to tell you.

Design a better game that isn't obsessed with loading your character sheet up with feats to show I can do basic adventuring shit.

> Secondly, yes, it is not common knowledge or what you call "a competent human" to be able to use weapons and firearms on a normal basis

I'm not playing a normal fucking human, am I? Or if I am, your game sucks a lot worse than I already though.

> If you could please explain what "Completely failing to understand the metagame of choice" is?

Character choice. If you give me the choice of Alertness and Power Attack, guess which one I'm going to pick? You refuse to balance your feats because you think people will pick your shitty feats for "muh character" when in reality you are just punishing them by presenting subpar options.

>>51299270
>Not only are there two kinds of hit points in OaTs, but they behave differently.

You renamed Vitality and Wound Points. Congratulations!

>>51299832
It's just like the shitty system OP copied the game from. See d20 system had a shitton of multipliers floating around so when they realized people could easily build a x40 damage crit build with various modifiers they decided a x11 crit build was better instead. Honestly anything that gets the shitty d20 combat over faster is fine by me, but whatever.

>>51299319
>If you like D20 Modern, play D20 Modern.

I don't like d20 Modern. Well, I like the game for it's charm and sort of out of pity, but my emotions have nothing to do with this argument. I don't see your game as a "threat" to d20 modern (which is a dead game anyway), nor am I at all in the dark about the game's many flaws. But, as it is, I have d20 Modern and I have Spycraft and if I'm going to play that kind of game I see zero reason to play yours when I can print out a single page of homebrew rules and play that instead.

> At the very least you can purchase things like a normal person and not have to roll every time you want to buy a box of bullets. Or a jacket. or a stick of gum.

Is that the problem you had with it? You could've just made up your own wealth system. That's not even close enough to a big enough flaw to merit designing your own system, you're going to have to do better than that.

> I am legitimately asking what you thought was broken about D20 Modern(if anything) and any possible ways to fix it.

I will address this in another post. Actually, it would take me an entire thread of posts to share what is wrong with it.

Alright OP I will tell you what is wrong with d20 Modern. Itself. Oh and by the way I run this game all the time and enjoy playing it. But man oh man is it fucked up.

We'll ignore the fact of rolling for stats. I don't even have an issue with that.

Nor do I have an issue with the hit point bloat. I seriously don't care. I wish the threshold for massive damage check was lower so guns were an actual risk without a critical hit, but whatever.

In fact, in a lot of ways I really cannot criticize d20 Modern. That's the thing, it set out to be a D&D 3.5 compatible game in a modern setting. It accomplished that goal. Is it a shit goal? Probably. But fitting those parameters I really don't see how it could have been much better.

Now, I don't know for sure but my guess is that you aren't necessarily constrained by these design parameters. Or maybe you are, because there isn't much other explanation for using classes, proficiency feats, and the fucking 3.5 skill system.

Of course, by switching to 3d6 as your base you are really just a poor man's GURPS. There is no reason for me not to play GURPS now. It's more elegantly designed and has the same level of complexity in its guns rules, and no offense but it is probably better designed and more realistic. Now, sticking to 1d20 can be fine, but if you are, why the hell are you sticking to d20 Modern's design space? You still have a good 80% of that game in there.

If this is making no sense to you, look at some lighter games and maybe it will.

Also understand that if you simplify in some places, it conserves and even opens up space to add additional complexity in other places.

Alright OP I'm a bit drunk to be honest and I've realized I've been a bit of a shit to your game.I started with this: >>51296350 and I guess i've been dogpiling you ever since. I homebrew too and I have way high standards for it, your ideas are cool man, it just depresses me that people do all this shit and the games just look like shit to me so I lash out at them as if that'll fix it or make them stop existing. I meant what I said about the game I just don't want to be that much of a shit about it and hurt your feelings, at least I hope I didn't, I understand how pet projects can be. I gotta go to bed, sorry I was such a snipy cunt with all the comments even if I backed the reasoning behind them

File: D20 S.T.A.L.K.E.R ver. 0.8.4.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51296610
>a stalker game
Ok, since everyone is just shitposting here, but probably has experience with d20 Modern, i will ask for opinions and sudgestions about my custom made d20 modern supplement for STALKER. Don't hold back.

>>51302278
>I assume I'm playing a leet operator badass in this game, right?

Wrong. That is not an assumption you can make. People have played non-operators succesfully in this game.

>I'm not playing a normal fucking human, am I?

See above post.

>Hmmm maybe something like weapons skills could cover that?

That was tried. It scaled out of control with everything else.

>>51302278
>>51302147
Will be answered momentarily

>>51302278
> I have d20 Modern and I have Spycraft and if I'm going to play that kind of game I see zero reason to play yours when I can print out a single page of homebrew rules and play that instead

Okay. Then do that?

>Is that the problem you had with it? You could've just made up your own wealth system. That's not even close enough to a big enough flaw to merit designing your own system, you're going to have to do better than that.

That was one of many problems I had.


>
Character choice. If you give me the choice of Alertness and Power Attack, guess which one I'm going to pick? You refuse to balance your feats because you think people will pick your shitty feats for "muh character" when in reality you are just punishing them by presenting subpar options.

Everyone isn't you. Everyone isn't a minmaxer. Some people like to actually play things that aren't the same thing every time. Not everyone is trying to "Win" and sees the GM as "the enemy".

>>51302504
Honestly, if you don't think it has any value, then don't play it. It's not my job to convince you what I wrote is good, change your already preset opinion, or divert you from your system of choice. I am simply preseting an alternative(that is better, IMO) to D20 Modern, and the other modern Games.

I've been at this for 7 years. If I let someone who yelled at me "you did all this wrong I don't like it!" stop me, I would've quit in 2010.

Also, post your homebrew.

>>51302147
>If they give you more actions overall, it's just more of the whole "you do a bunch of shit, then I do a bunch of a shit". Thus "going first" becomes more powerful than it otherwise should be. If it doesn't do that, then it's just an overly complicated system when you cuold just say "you move, you do your action, then some minor actions that shouldn't even matter as actual actions, like switching firing modes".

Either way you lose. Like i said before, if it's not your thing by all means go back to what you were doing.

FYI, it's the 1st one. You get more actions and you get a chance to actually choose in what order you use them.

>And so are yours, minus a few tiny things that will rarely make an actual difference in play.

They actually make a very big difference in play. Besides dictating size, caliber, mounts and upgrades, time period, starting equipment, action(Including the differences between Single action, double action, SA/DA, ect), and compatibility all play a big part in weapon selection.

>Why do I give a fuck about your magic system?

I suppose it would be the same reason I should care that you care.

It's modular. You write your own spells.

>Does it interact with the guns in an interesting way?

Black powder weapons, yes actually it does. Cased and shelled weapons(Weapons that use a put together cartrige) can't actually take direct bonuses from magic, but black powder weapons can.

>Yes.

This will take a minute.

>>51306671
Hey, >>51305569 here, i was going trough the book in search of something to steal, and found something that i was pounding my head against the wall for some time: supressive fire. My question is this: it says, that if someone walks INTO the supressive fire, he takes the weapon damage for each square passed. What if he already is in the threathened squears and moves out? if he just stands there does he gets affected? do the people running in get a save?

>>51306828
If he's already in the square, he had to have taken damage for autofire. If he moves out he doesnt take damage. People running in don't get a save I dont think. If they do, it will indicate. I can't check as I'm on my phone.

>>51306875
I mean he already gets shot by autofire once on your turn, does he get damaged a second time on his turn if he doesn't run out?

>>51307035
Yes. Bullets are flying at him!

>>51302464
>>51302147
>What did I think was wrong with D20 Modern


I'l have to break this up into sections

>Equipment

To knock an obvious one out of the park, I'm going to mention Firearms. My issue with firearms was that while there were "real" guns, the damages were by and large pointless to select anything but the gun with the most ammuntion. Why? Because every damage was 2d(something), And when it came to handguns, the scale was from d4 to d8, but it was far better to select a 9mm(chambered in 2d6) with 15 rounds than a 10mm(n 2d8) with only 8.

Which brings me to armor. Armor straight up doesn't work the way it works in real life. Not only do you REQUIRE a feat to even put on armor, but it doesn't actually stop bullets. Futhermore, the 2nd "Best" armor in the game is plate mail. This is completely out of place for a modern game.

There aren't enough attachments for firearms in general, there aren't enough types of ammo for guns, and there just wasn't any way to make a molle vest or even an alice vest. Clothing was largely pointless as it had no effect on the actual rules.

Purchasing things through rolls meant that every shopping expedition to obtain some equipment for a combat or even for a character out of combat was left up to luck.

Melee weapons are just outrightly better than ranged ones. Which isn't entirely false(Knives are way more dangerous close range than guns), but it's to the point where carrying around a sword, due to the feat stack, is the best weapon in the game by far.

Grenades are glorified fireballs.

>>51307144

>Core Rules

HP scaled out of control, and the fact that your defense/AC increased with a level meant that you quickly became invincible, due to the fact that firearms damage really didn't scale with level. Thus, you could play a character that straight up didn't care about guns because hey I can basically soak a magazine's worth of handgun bullets.

The fact that feats were gateways to do things and not merely dampeners on penalties bothered the fuck out of me. (See the fact you can't actually use the burst fire or autofire on a gun without taking the feats)

There were also too many levels for what the game was, and too many of them were just dead levels.

Dex Hero was basically the best due to how Dex and str are designed in the game, really negating any reason to play anything else.

>Combat

Combat is too slow, too restrictive, and too simplistic for modern combat. You can't shoot and duck and shoot or fire off two rounds, then perform a slug change over before ducking behind your cover.

There's no way to bleed to death, and by and large a character actually dying after 5th level is going to be really rare unless you're going against someone who can do a lot of damage in a single turn.

>Magic

Vancian magic. I never liked it. I never liked how you couldn't actually make your own spells instead of selecting from a preset premade list of spells.

>Crafting

Basically non-existant.

>>51307065
Thanks, might implement it if i decide. Also would appreciate any feedback on my stalker gig. Warning it's a bit more arkade and may trigger /k/

>Skills

Way too many for no real reason, and a lot of them could be blended into existing skills, or be meshed together. Also three skills(Sens Motive, Research, Investigate) basically removed a lot of roleplaying potential .

Gamble shouldn't exist. It's a bad skill. I had to find this one out the hard way myself. Profession not only shouldn't exist, it's actually a hinderance as it directly affects the "Wealth score" of a player.

>Feats

See "Core issues" Straight up not enough to do, and they are gateways and not penalty dampeners. Some times I don't care if I won't get the +5 bonus to attack, I just want to fire the damn machine gun cause it's an emergency.
out of combat was left up to luck.
>Melee weapons are just outrightly better than ranged ones. Which isn't entirely false(Knives are way more dangerous close range than guns), but it's to the point where carrying around a sword, due to the feat stack, is the best weapon in the game by far.

>>51307165
I'll take a look at it.

>>51307165
It really feels more like a skin than a conversion.

File: 1408427934173.jpg (516KB, 1280x1651px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1280x1651px

Still haven't had a chance to try this yet which I regret.

I admire you OP for continuing to push your product in such a hostile environment. Keep at it and keep revising and including improvements.

Cheers.

>>51308406
Thank you! And you don't get anywhere by being coddled.

>>51308543
Very true. The fact that you've remained relatively calm throughout the process while fielding accusations and hate is something i'm quite pleased to see in this day and age...especially on these boards.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to trying your systems at some point in the, hopefully, not too distant future.

File: C1s8Mu3VQAAmqT5.jpg:large.jpg (15KB, 512x287px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 512x287px

Just as a minor point with regards to feats, you get a fucklot more of them in oats compared to d20 modern- As in, like, at least one every level, two every other level, as opposed to d20 modern's every third level d&d-style.
That takes some pressure off of feats to be so powerful, I think, since they're less of a limited resource, but then you can also do things like just ball hard into the armor tree and become Fatman so hey.

>>51308825
Got no reason to be mad. I know what I made is good to me and that's who I made it for. It can always be better, but you don't get better responding to critism without constructive reasoning.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy it.

This is pretty good, dude, nice work.

Have you thought about doing a modern conversion for 5e?

>>51310876
Nope. 5e is too different from this and there ain't much to port over.

So there is zero reason to "port" over 5e. They're entirely different games with entirely different markets and goals.

One final bump before The sweet release of death of this thread.

>>51312846
I'm not letting you post the final bump.

>>51307804
It's both. I cut out everything i thought isn't needed and tweaked calsses, weaponns and armor, added equipment degradation, upgrades economy and artefacts, after that reskinned everything in the style of the first game. Basically all a stalker could want, since my players don't know anything other than d20. Runs pretty smooth, but i'm always open for suggestions.

>>51313601
I couldn't really give you any sudgestions to it. Sorry.

Mostly because most of my sudgestions would just mirror Ops and Tactics Rules.

So hell, scour the core rulebook for rules you like.