Forum

There is a big difference between Balanced and "balanced," I think. And in any case I would accept somewhat unbalanced in exchange for depth -- but as it is, you quickly run head-on into a lack of depth with many character builds. Most specifically, as discussed, because there just aren't enough skills to support the careers available in a way that feels right.

Can't say that I miss a bunch of flavour skills but sure perhaps they could have done 16 skills instead of 12. What I do miss and am a little bit surprised with is specialties. FL usually have a blend of "boring" but useful talents (as they are called in other FL games) with some more colourful ones. I miss the more colourful ones I must say.

Agreed, and I've said as much here and in other threads.

As for the skills, yeah, I don't think it takes a whole lot. The increase from 12 to 16 would probably be enough to flesh out the differences between careers quite a lot (and remove some of the definite strangeness of some of the existing ones).

I was inspired to modify the skills list vs the alpha game - the next thing would be to change the careers (and I think it would make some of the funky weird skills from careers work a little better) - but at this stage I'm not going to jump into anything because it's still in alpha!

My goal was to add one extra skill to each attribute and move / tweak some specialities a little. I'm sharing - not to change anyone's mind, but just because I'm interested to hear thoughts and I thought it might be useful

Mechanics (STR)
“Heavy” crafting vs TECH being “lighter or more precise” crafting

Infiltration (AGL)
Staying hidden and getting into places or stealing things that don’t belong to you. Recon is observing stuff and Infiltration is being sneaky

Education (INT)
Things to do with theory but less about practical - more about working out what needs to be done and supervising it vs actually doing it!

Socialise (EMP)
Ability to mix socially with others, be accepted, and get information.

NPCs
I’m ok if NPCs just use the old skill set since 1) it’ll be easier to manage and 2) it’s ok for NPCs to have less skills.
Really unimportant NPCs can have an even more simplified skill set, e.g. Move | Fight | Talk | Tinker

STRENGTH
Close Combat
1. Brawler
2. Melee
3. Killer
4. Martial Artist
5. Fencer (some change to block action)
6. Wrestler (some bonus or modification to the grapple actions)
Heavy Weapons
1. Machine Gunner (re-roll all ammo dice once?)
2. Launcher Crew
3. Redleg (for indirect artillery)
4. Gunner (for direct fire and tank guns)
Stamina
1. Labourer (ditch digging, excavation, temp emplacements)
2. Load Carrier
3. NBC
4. Ranger
5. Sere Training
6. Swimmer (like ranger but for swimming)
7. Weight Lifter (bonus to lift things?)
Mechanics
1. Mechanic
2. Blacksmith (forging but not tool machining)
3. Machinist (tool-machine fabrication)
4. Builder (building dwellings etc - might move back to Stamina and remove Labourer)

AGILITY
Driving
1. Biker
2. Boatman
3. Pilot
4. Racer
5. Tanker
Mobility
1. Diver
2. Mountaineer
3. Paratrooper
4. Rider
5. Runner
6. Skiier (Swedish setting without skis?)
Ranged Combat
1. Archer
2. Pitcher
3. Reloader
4. Rifleman
5. Sidearms
6. Sniper
7. CQB Training (draw 2 init cards in close? With carbines/smgs/pistols + bonus to Mobility for doorways / obstacles)
Infiltration
1. Prowler (replaces Infiltrator from Recon - keep hide and sneak together)
2. Locksmith (moved from Tech)
3. Cutpurse (also sleight of hand / picking pockets)
4. Forger (forging documents, could put under Tech but I think it fits better here)

INTELLEGENCE
Recon
1. Forward Observer
2. Tracker (?? Bonus for following others?)
3. Intelligence
4. Investigator
5. Scout
Survival
1. Cook
2. Farmer
3. Fisher
4. Forager
5. Navigator
6. Hunter
7. Quartermaster
8. Scrounger
Tech
1. Chemist
2. Combat Engineer
3. Communications
4. Computers
5. Electrician
6. Gunsmith
7. Improvised Munitions
Education
1. Historian (moved from Recon)
2. Researcher (for those call of cthulhu moments)
3. Scientist (moved from Tech, chem, bio, geology)
4. Civil Engineer (supervise the construction of big and complicated things - like bridges - necessary with Logistician?)
5. Mining Engineer (supervise the construction and running of a mine)
6. Archaeologist (recovering / restoring of artefacts ??)
7. Lawyer (probably never used …. But …)
8. Bureaucrat (for record keeping and just running of cities / accounting - necessary with Logistician?)

EMPATHY
Command
1. Frontline Leader
2. Logistician
3. Tactician
4. Teacher (moved from Persuasion, maybe change name to Instructor)
Medical Aid
1. Combat Medic
2. Counselor
3. Field Surgeon
4. General Practitioner
5. Veterinarian
Persuasion
1. Seducer (bonus for getting what you want through real/implied favours)
2. Musician (consider changing name to Performer)
3. Interrogator
4. Psy Ops
5. Bully (bonus with intimidation)
6. Oritor (bonus / effect when talking to large crowds)
7. Trader (bonus when buying / haggling / bartering)
Socialise
1. Linguist (moved from Persuasion)
2. Impersonator (bonus to pretending to be someone else and disguise)
3. Rumourmonger (bonus getting info / gossiping / rumours in a social setting)
4. Animal Handler (Animal Whisperer ?? - Something for reaction rolls vs animals)

1) But since a term ages your character and that also affect your stats. On the average you will have one stat decrease, perhaps two if you have a lot of terms. Using the Life Path system also let you start with one more stat increase (3 instead of 2) compared to archetype character creation.

If it was based on age (roll when you pass 30, 40 etc) I would agree that it's age-based.

Now it's primarily term-based and secondarily age-based. You could do 3 terms, age 3 years (3 terms x 1 year) and get 3 age effects. Or you could age 18 years (3 terms x 6 year) and not get the effects.

But maybe it's needed to get balance, as I wrote I'm still thinking about it.

better way to state the issue, IMO: In the alpha, age is an effect of terms, and aging is an effect or terms, but aging should be an effect of age. It's possible to generate a 24yo SFC... but, even entering as an e3 from HS JROTC, the minimum TIS is going to make that guy still an E5 in the real world...

Plus, the direct correlation of CUF and Rank is a problem. Majors and Buck Sergeants in supply corps should not even be able to get to CUF A...
Personally, I think the CUF increase should be requiring a second success - on a single, pick either the specialty OR the CUF, on a double, get both.

The problem is CUF is decoupled from combat experience, as it is in 1e. 2e's initiative tries to keep some semblance of this with Initiative, but it has no specific combat experience mechanic to tie into a character (besides its "everyone's been at this since the beginning" paradigm.) So now you have a general "CUF = keeping it together under stress" paradigm which definitely goes up as you increase in rank, regardless of category (CA, CS, or CSS). And this version also seems to follow 2e's model, given the war term for Lifepath is exactly 3 years.

Interesting point. It would be sort of neat in the lifepath system if it told you/reflected whether or not you saw combat. Odds of that go up a lot with the war of course, maybe even to 100%. But before then, there's some careers where it would apply, even non-military, and others where it wouldn't.

But as I said somewhere along the line, I think the idea of CUF of being tied to military experience or rank is inherently flawed. Some people have it, some people don't. Some of those people who do choose to go into professions like police or military where it is a major asset, but not all.

CUF may not improve with battlefield experience: heaps of soldiers will suffer from various levels of PTSD as they reach their limit and break under stress. Going through chemical and nuclear attacks, seeing huge numbers of people die, and watching the world descend into hell will burn out the best of soldiers. Some will become unfeeling psychopaths, but more will shy away from conflict and focus on survival.

This was well studied during WWII -- we can thank the US Army for wanting to study everything.

Generally, what we could reasonably interpret as "Coolness Under Fire" improved with combat experience, to a point, and then deteriorated with further combat experience -- this in the context of e.g. the Normandy campaign. The Twilight War probably resembles that campaign much more closely than any recent US Army experience, in that there are not enough troops to rotate units out for extended rests and there is no such thing as being a short timer. I only recall this vaguely, it was in John Ellis's book On the Front Lines (a.k.a. At the Sharp End) and I may have sold my copy.

Basically your green troops don't recognized combat hazards and may overreact to things, but with experience they learn not only to distinguish incoming and outcoming fire but also to distinguish things like an incoming shell that is passing over from one that will hit close by. But with further combat exposure they become jumpy and begin overreacting to any potential threat.

So, applying this knowledge, soldiers in Twilight:2000 should have CUF F while civilians should have CUF D.

That might not work so well in the game! But clearly it should not advance with rank regardless of trade & should be coupled to actual combat experience, with variability between individuals because people possess sang froid and resilience in varying degrees.

This was well studied during WWII -- we can thank the US Army for wanting to study everything.

Generally, what we could reasonably interpret as "Coolness Under Fire" improved with combat experience, to a point, and then deteriorated with further combat experience -- this in the context of e.g. the Normandy campaign. The Twilight War probably resembles that campaign much more closely than any recent US Army experience, in that there are not enough troops to rotate units out for extended rests and there is no such thing as being a short timer. I only recall this vaguely, it was in John Ellis's book On the Front Lines (a.k.a. At the Sharp End) and I may have sold my copy.

Basically your green troops don't recognized combat hazards and may overreact to things, but with experience they learn not only to distinguish incoming and outcoming fire but also to distinguish things like an incoming shell that is passing over from one that will hit close by. But with further combat exposure they become jumpy and begin overreacting to any potential threat.

So, applying this knowledge, soldiers in Twilight:2000 should have CUF F while civilians should have CUF D.

That might not work so well in the game! But clearly it should not advance with rank regardless of trade & should be coupled to actual combat experience, with variability between individuals because people possess sang froid and resilience in varying degrees.

Hence my suggestion that the success roll have it's successes spent separately on CUF. After I hit send, I realized that perhaps it should go to 1s for the specialty, one for rank, and one for CUF if military. Double rank cost and CUF cost if in paramilitary (Law Enf, fire), and treble if civilian. (Reservist?)