the Imperium is vastly intolerant of people who break their rules. If you invest a toaster and they don't have time to deal with it now, they will deal with it when they can. Name goes on a list.
But the Imperium are 100% not good guys. They are about as nightmarish as it is possible to get. It's just that for most humans, you can avoid attracting their attention and, if you live on a decent planet, live a relatively normal and maybe even happy life. It does happen. Probably happens a lot. Just not when the Imperium get involved and indeed on many planets where they don't life is still very toss.
The only thing more nightmarish than the Imperium would be that, in the 40K setting, if the Imperium didn't exist humanity would become a nightmarish playground for the demons of the warp and alien predators, as isolated human systems get torn apart and psykers without control of their abilities unleash demon worlds all over the place. That's basically the reason the Imperium exists; protect humanity from aliens and their own uncontrolled psychic talent. The only reason they exist is as they do now is because they inherit a stagnant and unchanging culture which recruits people that will perpetuate it indefinitely, and because they believe that humanity must be preserved as a whole, and any part of humanity which gets in the way of that, or must be sacrificed to do that, is disposable. Originally it was horrific but rational, in the 41st millenium it is horrific but irrational, a rotting corpse of a society.
Solar on
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, but the BL books I read from Abnett’s offering, Caiaphas Cain, and the Space Wolves don’t paint them that bad?
The Imperium has multiple heroic people and places ideals on courage and self-sacrifice.
There’s like hundreds of cultures across the Imperium.
I don’t consider their stagnancy to be a slow death.
They’re not Ingsoc or the Xeelee Wars people where they use power just for power’s sake or send a billion child soldiers to fight an obviously impossible fight.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, but the BL books I read from Abnett’s offering, Caiaphas Cain, and the Space Wolves don’t paint them that bad?
The Imperium has multiple heroic people and places ideals on courage and self-sacrifice.
There’s like hundreds of cultures across the Imperium.
I don’t consider their stagnancy to be a slow death.
They’re not Ingsoc or the Xeelee Wars people where they use power just for power’s sake or send a billion child soldiers to fight an obviously impossible fight.
As I've said, what you're hitting here is the clash between people who started following 40k fluff with 80s/90s material, and the fluff that started with the Black Library in the 00s.
They are so dramatically different that we can all be right.
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
No pretty(ish) .pngs this time because I haven't had time to sit down with Scribus for a few days, but further notes on my Pokemon World hack as I'm hashing out specific systems:
So most GMs will probably opt for a narrative approach to wild encounters, which is fine. "Oh, you're hunting for Flying types? Well, you do spot a Pidgey in a clearing a short distance away. What do you do?" But I want to include a random-encounter option, because that feels like a moderately important element of The Pokemon Experience or whatever, the fact that you're somewhat at the mercy of what throws itself at you as you travel. So here's what I'm thinking.
1. When prepping a new area, the GM writes the area's name (ex:"Route 1") at the top of the sheet. Below, there's a table with 13 rows, marked 1-13. These represent rolls, and each one is labeled with the probability of rolling that specific number using 2d6.
On each row, the GM writes a Pokemon species. The same species can be written on multiple rows for increased chances of finding it. When the players are in a situation where a random encounter makes sense, just roll 2d6 with no modifiers and throw one or more of the resulting species at them.
2. The 1 and 13 slots are for exceptionally rare Pokemon like legendaries, or Pokemon who might not be easily found in the area but could be specifically hunted. But it's impossible to roll either of those numbers on 2d6, so how could they ever be found? The answer: With bait.
So you go to a PokeMart, and in addition to different kinds of balls, potions, and such, they've now got different kinds of bait. Maybe there's an Electric-type bait. Maybe there's a bait specifically geared toward Goldeen. So anyway, you buy some Flying-type bait, because you've heard rumors of an exceptionally powerful bird Pokemon living in a nearby valley, but nobody's really sure what it is. You go out to hunt, and use some of this bait. Now, because of the bait, your roll is modified with an automatic +/-1 if there's a Flying-type on an adjacent row. You roll a 12, and because the legendary bird is on the 13th row, you get a chance to fight and possibly catch Moltres.
3. There will also be moves for some playbooks that allow you to enjoy the same effects even without bait in certain circumstances. For instance, the Enthusiast playbook chooses a specific type as their specialty at character creation, and picks up moves related to that specialty as they level up. "I Know How They Think" will allow you to act as though you're always carrying bait for your specialty.
4. The encounter sheet will likely contain multiple columns for different sections of an area. For instance, there could be a general column for Route 1 that just indicates which Pokemon are widely distributed across it, but then additional columns for a cavern near its east end, for fishing in its largest lake, for the abandoned factory beside that lake, etc. In addition to helping the GM form a clearer picture of the area, this chart can be referenced when answering certain questions from the "Consult Your Pokedex" move. Players who are into note-taking can use blank versions of the sheet to mark down which species they encounter in a given area.
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
1,000 imperial citizens are sacrificed daily to maintain the God Emperor's pathetic false life.
Imperial citizens that were too strong psychically to maintain their powers or too weak to control them that would explode into daemons and doom entire planets to sectors. It’s almost a mercy for them since their souls would have been consumed by a daemon.
Also that Emperor’s “False Life” keeps the Imperium’s most important navigation and communication system open, and with his psychic presence has redirected ships and made living saints that won wars. Faith in him can give daemons pause, the ability for the faithful’s flame to not harm his allies, and keep a universe wide galactic empire from tearing itself apart.
Edit: in terms of actual roleplaying, I guess it’s like how comics and novels change perspective on characters and universes. GMing is similar. Admanb is right in that there’s not a definitive answer.
Didn't we just go over how space marines are adolescents that are jacked up on genetic modification and extreme indoctrination?
Don't comissars literally kill their own men if they turn back from an unwinable fight?
Yeah, and those former ganger punks become defenders of humanity, becoming monsters to get rid of worse monsters. Also Space Marines don’t just conscript people but also allow volunteers and people who prove themselves worthy. What is really better, dying from lead poisoning in a hole at the bottom of Necromunda or sacrificing one’s life to stop an arch heretic from dooming an entire sector?
Commissars do that, and in Cain and Gaunt novels not often, because they have to be feared more than the monsters and terrors the guard face. The guard have to face them so billions back home don’t die. Commissars don’t just kill troopers when it suits their fancy, they’re supposed to lead by example at the front and instill loyalty and bravery. If one dead trooper can scare the rest of a platoon to keep firing just long enough so reinforcements can make it in time and not lose a valued strategic position or asset, that’s what they’ll do.
I don't know. I feel the random encounter element of pokemon largely boiled down to "this isn't what I'm looking for, I run away immediately" or "this isn't what I'm looking for, I OHKO it for the tiny amount of exp".
Or 'holy shit, is that a fucking Moltres, I'm level 15, what the fuck, I don't want to die.'
But I passionately hate anything random and run PbPs as a matter of course so anything that could delay an actually meaningful update by a week or more gets snippety snapped instanter. Also I've never seen a route get visited more than once (per player who's looking for an addition to their team, mind), so blocking out thirteen encounters for it seem like an excess of invested time, but then I definitely subscribe to the "you want a flying type? Here's a Pidgey" style, so that rule really ain't my thing to begin with.
Marshmallow on
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I don't know. I feel the random encounter element of pokemon largely boiled down to "this isn't what I'm looking for, I run away immediately" or "this isn't what I'm looking for, I OHKO it for the tiny amount of exp".
Or 'holy shit, is that a fucking Moltres, I'm level 15, what the fuck, I don't want to die.'
But I passionately hate anything random and run PbPs as a matter of course so anything that could delay an actually meaningful update by a week or more gets snippety snapped instanter. Also I've never seen a route get visited more than once (per player who's looking for an addition to their team, mind), so blocking out thirteen encounters for it seem like an excess of invested time, but then I definitely subscribe to the "you want a flying type? Here's a Pidgey" style, so that rule really ain't my thing to begin with.
Well, and the thing is that if you want to do that, there's no reason you can't. There's no system that breaks without random encounters, just a few moves that players won't take because they're not as useful if you're doing it this way. Also no reason you can't do one sometimes, and the other at other times. Like if the player says she's specifically hunting a Squirtle, you can do that. And if she says she's just interested in fishing up whatever's in the lake, you can roll the dice.
I was just stating a personal view on the rule. Really a GM can use all the help they can get, so an option for generating an encounter without having to do much more than roll the dice is a fine addition, especially if you got the disclaimer that random encounters are mostly useful for certain situations and groups and its okay to ignore them if they aren't useful at the moment.
I've definitely had to hit some random generators when players have been less than outspoken about their preferences for an encounter.
I could see bait being tricky if you have a player recalcitrant about spending resources on finding their preferred pokemon when they feel they can just run away and keep looking, though, but that's it's own issue of dealing with an uncooperative player, or communicating encounter expectations, really.
this is why when i dabble in 40k i go with rogue trader
"screw the rules I have moneywrit of marque" and sailing the warp making your fortune exploiting the Imperium is way more enticing than playing either an inquisitorial boot lick or a genetically modified gun zealot
+5
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
That’s fair. I would probably have to do it myself, but a campaign set in basically a bizzarro 40k-ified season of Star Trek (TNG) would be really neat. Though it couldn’t be TNG season 1 because “FIRE EVERYTHING” probably wouldn’t work against not-Q.
The thing that makes 40k a good RPG setting is that all the things we're talking about are just themes. The individual characters, planets, scenarios, etc., can all be different for different DMs. You can alter the local space marine chapters, imperial guard regiments, planetary governors, and whatever else to fit your story. It's a vast universe with little centralized control (unless you're a Tyranid)
Has there ever been a good semi crunchy sim style game for playing fighter pilots
This is both a serious question, a joke about G-forces and a plea for the discussion to move on btw
The FFG Star Wars RPG has rules for dogfighting in it as well, but reading through them I didn't get a solid understanding of how the firing arcs came into play or what I could do by outmanuevering. For what it's worth, my buddies and I really like the X-Wing minis games, and draw a lot of parallels to real life dogfighting.
If you're really interested in making a game about role playing a fighter pilot you can ask me any questions. I've been a fighter pilot in the USAF for 11 years.
Any time I play X-Wing with pilots they all want the prettiest formations. Whatever, I'm about to screw dash two with this cluster mine!
I didn't look over those rules posted in the other page, it seems like it would be difficult to balance a dogfighting RPG in a triangle with Crunchy Rules, Narrative Experience, and Miniature Combat. You can still find the WW1/2 minis that came before X-Wing. If you could do a co-op campaign of that in the same vein as Heroes of the Aturi Cluster I think it would be legit. Either way I'd use the minis.
I know Fragged Empire does space combat as well, but I haven't looked at those rules in a while. @Albino Bunny would know that side a little better.
Fragged definitely isn’t dog fighting and honestly the combat rules aren’t what makes that game special so I don’t think it’d really be a good fit for a game focused on it.
Fragged definitely isn’t dog fighting and honestly the combat rules aren’t what makes that game special so I don’t think it’d really be a good fit for a game focused on it.
Ultramodern 5 has rules and stats for aircraft compatible with 5e that I'm looking at right now. I don't think it would feel like what you're aiming for.
The reality is that dogfighting is predicated on the weapons of the era: modern dogfighting with helmet cued high off-boresight IR missiles (aka heat-seeking missiles, colloqually called "heaters") is completely different than the dogfighting of the 80s where heaters could only be shot from a limited envelope (nominally 1-2 miles in trail, pure pursuit to slight lead). The introduction of missiles fundamentally changed dogfighting from the korean war era of the gun, which has an even tighter envelope (within a few thousand feet, 10 to 20 degrees of lead pursuit depending on range.) If we're talking about some sci-fi game with shields and lasers then the 'rules' of dogfighting are going to change to accommodate them.
We teach three axioms that are true in any era:
Lose sight, lose fight; meaning that if you go "no-joy" (the term for losing sight of the enemy) then you will not be able to react to their maneuvers, and you're going to die. In fact most air-to-air kills are against unaware targets.
Maneuver in relation to the bandit; which is a fancy way of saying you need to react to the other fighter's moves. They might make an 'error' that you can capitalize on, even if that wasn't you were planning on or if doing so would cause an error of your own.
Energy v. nose-position; this takes a bit of explaining. Your speed and altitude are both energy that you can 'spend' to get a faster turn rate and a smaller turn radius. As your speed decreases your turn rate slows and your turn radius expands, allowing more maneuverable fighters to gain the advantage. Additionally, because you're inducing so much drag while turning, it's difficult to regain your speed, especially at a level attitude, which is why dogfights tend to go downhill (as we say). So fighters want to turn at their best sustained turn rates, but will cash in some energy to turn at their best instantaneous turn rates for a short time to either kill or survive. This axiom is also about knowing your jet and how to max-perform it.
All of what I've described is about Within Visual Range (WVR) combat, more often called Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) (especially in training), though I think a "furball" is more common internationally. Generally we don't use the term 'dogfighting' as it's seen as archaic. The real reality is that these very close visual engagements are about as common in modern war as hand-to-hand combat is on the ground: very uncommon, but you need to be able to do so proficiently at a moment's notice which is why we still practice them (and also they're a lot of fun). Beyond Visual Range (BVR) is a whole different ballgame, highly dependent on the weapons and weapon platform (aka the jet), and where the discussion starts getting into the realm of classified.
How does this translate into a tabletop RPG? I don't have a direct answer. I think you could distill these elements so that they make sense in everything from GURPS to FATE. The characteristics of the jet itself could easily just be equipment bonuses to the individual pilot's skill (which I think is how it works in FFG). My suggestion would be to map your rules to those three axioms: for example you could include a high-risk, high-reward maneuver to make the bandit lose sight so that you get a free turn where he can't maneuver against you (effectively making him stunned), but if that fails, then he gains an advantageous position.
On the other side of the equation, if you want to role-play fighter pilots, you can go with Top Gun. It maps pretty well, especially for its era. I'm happy to provide other things like why you don't want to fly with a guy who's callsign is "Wedge", or that jalapeno popcorn and way to dark coffee is the standard, or why we drink Jack and diet-coke (though coke zero is acceptable).
I'm going to be running a one off about Korean war pilots getting involved in a cold war horror stand off so I will be limiting the system to the WVR combat by virtue of the tech (and it's fun).
I would guess that in long range modern air combat for a realistic system I'd say roll to see if your Jet systems detects them, roll to see if it locks on with your missile system, fire missile, roll countermeasures, and then a hit means a kill.
Which may not be so fun. But I need cold war era for the plot, and I'm thinking 50s or 80s. Tempted by 50s more because it's a bit more old school. What would that be, Sabres?
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
But if you do 80's you can do Top Gun.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Eh? You could always steal some ideas from Night Witches. @italianranma I really liked your post, but it felt incomplete without blue and green dry erase markers. Overall Q1!
I'm going to be running a one off about Korean war pilots getting involved in a cold war horror stand off so I will be limiting the system to the WVR combat by virtue of the tech (and it's fun).
I would guess that in long range modern air combat for a realistic system I'd say roll to see if your Jet systems detects them, roll to see if it locks on with your missile system, fire missile, roll countermeasures, and then a hit means a kill.
Which may not be so fun. But I need cold war era for the plot, and I'm thinking 50s or 80s. Tempted by 50s more because it's a bit more old school. What would that be, Sabres?
I’ll start with the fact that the Korean air war isn’t something I’ve ever studied. But I’m looking for a good book anyway so I’ll pick one up and let you know if any of this info changes. I'll also start with a blanket caveat that all of what I'm saying comes from America's perspective.
The F-86 Sabre was the premier US fighter during the war, but at the beginning of the warP-80s and F-82 Twin Mustangs engaged North Korean Lavochkin La-7s and Ilyushin II-10s, aircraft that prior to making this post I had never heard of. Turboprop fighters are very slow to gain energy (both altitude and speed), and though they turn very well (because of relatively high wing loading) their limited speed gives them fleeting shots at best against jet fighters. In fact, the tactics (as I understand them) were to get high and fast and dive through their formations, the relative speeds involved making the turboprop fighters about as easy to hit as a ground vehicle, i.e. easy. Once the Soviet MiG-15 entered the theatre, the straight-winged P-80s were similarly outmatched, and only the F-86 could compete.
The F-86 and MiG-15 are very similar utilizing evolutionary swept wing designs that allowed them to have higher top speeds and the ability to recover from a supersonic dive. The MiG-15 initially had the advantage in both performance and armament. The MiG-15 had 2x23mm cannons and single 37mm cannon: the 23mm were for fighting other fighters and the 37 for destroying bombers. In comparison the F-86's 6x .50" machineguns provided a higher rate of fire at the cost of lower range and far less stopping power. You could in this case give the F-86 a slight accuracy advantage offset by the higher damage and longer range of the MiG-15. I'd stress though that hitting a maneuvering (or even a non-maneuvering fighter at long range) was just about impossible with that 37mm. The F-86 continued to receive improvements culminating with the F-86F (sometimes called the "block 40") introducing a larger wing with wing slats that finally gave it a much needed advantage in agility.
Despite the limitations, the F-86 enjoyed a favorable ratio against MiGs of somewhere betwee 10 to 1 or 5 to 1 (air victories were often exaggerated on both sides). This is usually credited to the superior training and experience of American forces. China and North Korea didn't have a large contingent of combat aces from WWII, and their training was often limited to simply taking off, flying in formation, and landing. The Soviets had experience and better training, but still not up to par, and eventually their experienced vets were mostly replaced by rookies.
With the background out of the way I'll talk a little bit about the daily ops, dogfighting, and culture, which I again will state that I'm not an expert on. I did get to meet Boots Blesse and hear him talk about the time he shot down 3 MiGs in a day, so I'll relate some of what he talked about.
I'll let you do the research on the various air-bases that your players will operate out of, but I'll bet that the daily life is pretty similar no matter where you're at. I'm pretty sure during this time period all the pilots lived in dorms on base. They eat at a flight-line chow hall that they may share with the maintainers or potentially with the rest of the base, though they could have their own private dining hall. They probably fly once or twice a day for four hour missions. The mission briefing starts with an Intelligence officer who shows the big map with all the known enemy artillery positions, especially the Anti-Aircraft Artillery (written as AAA but pronounced "Triple A"), and suspected fighter positions, along with a recap of the notable flying events from yesterday. The flight lead will then give his briefing on what contracts he wants his wingman to follow, and the flight will review the mission set and the products before stepping to the jets. The various mission sets are:
Air-Interdiction (AI) where they take jets loaded with bombs and rockets to destroy artillery positions, supply camps, troop formations, and convoys
Escort where they fly with B-29 or B-26 bombers to protect them
and Sweep where they fly looking for enemy fighters to destroy
For products, either intel or the pilots themselves will take maps and draw in big black lines their route of flight, a get-well position (used to find the formation again if someone gets lost), and emergency landing fields.
I couldn't find how many radios the F-86 had, so I'm going to assume one only. After takeoff the flight switches to a common frequency for all US fighters. Command & Control (C2) would then give point-outs in bullseye or geographic location of suspected enemy formations. The flight lead would then "commit" the flight to that fighter group, and probably not talk on the radio again until they had either found the enemy formation or was ready to return to base (RTB). Flights have unique callsigns (which are different than the fighter pilot's personal callsign. Sort of like "Red Squadron" or "Gold Squadron" from Star Wars, you'd probably have "Sabre 11 flight" or "Lancer 21 flight" if the squadron was the 333rd Lancers, for example. Squadrons tend to run on themes, so the Lancers would have something like "Knight flight", "Axe Flight", "Charger Flight" etc. The rules for these callsigns are typically that they should sound unique from other callsigns and be two syllables or less, so Knight flight and Fight Flight wouldn't work as they rhyme, nor would "Cavalier Flight" because it's too long. Once the formation found the enemy they'd report back to C2 using saying the location, composition, altitude, and direction: "Sabre 11 engaging 8 fagots, kumsong pass, fifteen thousand, headed south." "Fagot" by the way was the NATO reporting name for the MiG-15 on account of it's cigar shaped body, and fagot being a slang term for cigarette. I couldn't tell you if the word was used derogatorily at that time or not.
Before we get into the dog fighting, we'll continue with the rest of the flight. Navigation at this time relied on radio instruments also known as NAVAIDS (navigational aids), but most flights would learn geographical references and use those as their primary references. That being said, the Korean peninsula is plagued by foul weather, especially in the summer, so navigating by instruments is an important skill. These early instruments weren't always reliable and were difficult to interpret for young pilots as well: so getting lost and running yourself out of fuel is something that could happen. Speaking of fuel I didn't see any stats on ranges or duration, so my guess is that a sortie could be about four-hours total if at high altitude (where the fuel consumption rate is lower) and capping (using a low engine setting). Sabres were equipped with drop tanks that would be jettisoned as soon as the flight became engaged. Without tanks the flight's duration would be cut in half, as would be the case if the engines were in MIL (military power, i.e. max sustainable engine setting) and/or if the formation was flying at low altitude. Managing fuel is a very important skill, even in modern combat, and if you don't go home at BINGO, your in danger of flaming out your engine and crashing.
Formation flying was usually in spread (about 500 ft apart) when not fighting and between 1 to 2 nautical miles (we just say miles, but we mean NM) in tactical formation. Wingmen were required to be visual with the flight lead at all times, checking his six and looking on their own side of the formation for enemies as well. Most communication between formation members was done through visual signals: hand signals when in spread and by wing rocks or porpoising when in tactical. Once in the Furball it became extremely difficult for wingman to keep the visual, but if they did the would often be able to score kills by clearing the flight lead's six: good formation flying and tactics were one of the highest emphasis items for wingman during this time.
Once the MiGs were spotted, usually because of the sun glinting off of that ridiculous chrome paint scheme, the formation would attempt to enter the fight unobserved: usually this meant being either 10,000' higher or lower in elevation (if possible) and gunning the outside or trailing element of the enemy formation. The F-86 was equipped with a computer gunsight that used a range finding radar and computed the bullet path. The F-86's guns were harmonized at 1000', so it had to get about that close to score a kill. The Korean war also introduced the gun cam, so you can find lots of footage of real shoot downs. Once the enemy became aware, that's when the dogfighting really started. Besides what I talked about in my previous post, another important thing to remember is the number one killer of aircraft: the ground. When a pilot becomes too task saturated on their enemy, they can easily lose their spacial awareness and run right into the ground: especially in the mountainous terrain of Korea. Every pilot I know, including me, has at least one friend who's died by running into the ground, and it was even more common back then. That being said there's a lot of great reasons to get down to the ground: mostly because it's extremely difficult and dangerous for an enemy to try to shoot you when you're that low. So, make sure you include those elements in your game.
This post got a bit long, so I'm going to save the cultural discussion for later. For books, I think The Hunters is a good one right? Anyone have any other recommendations?
Oh god, now I'm imagining starting a battle and 1d4 rounds later you either go lost wingman or inadvertent IMC and have to get everyone home by scud running while vulnerable to ground fire.
Oh god, now I'm imagining starting a battle and 1d4 rounds later you either go lost wingman or inadvertent IMC and have to get everyone home by scud running while vulnerable to ground fire.
I wish I could both agree and awesome. That scenario is essentially what it meant to fight in the Korean war.
Eh? You could always steal some ideas from Night Witches. @italianranma I really liked your post, but it felt incomplete without blue and green dry erase markers. Overall Q1!
Post lacked gesturing with hands to explain complex maneuvers; 2/10
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Was feeling artsy tonight instead of maths-y, so I decided to play with GIMP a little.
+2
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Also, here's the basic moves so far. These are even more WIP than the other stuff.
Consult Your Pokedex
Choose a Pokemon visible to you and roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask your GM two of the questions below. On a 7-9, ask only one. Take +1 forward when acting on any of the answers. Regardless of your roll, the GM should at least tell you the Pokemon's species.
•What are this Pokemon's types?
•What is this Pokemon's will?
•What is this Pokemon's nature?
•Is there anything unusual about this Pokemon's behavior or appearance?
•Is this Pokemon wild or tamed?
•What are this Pokemon's prepared moves?
•What are this Pokemon's highest and lowest stats?
Find 'Em!
Roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask your GM two of the questions below. On a 7-9, ask only one. Take +1 forward when acting on any of the answers.
•What types of Pokemon are typically found in this area?
•What is the species most commonly found in this area?
•What is the species least commonly found in this area?
•Are there any specific locations in this area where I'm likely to find different species?
•Can <specific species> be found in this area?
Catch 'Em!
Choose a wild Pokemon visible to you, and use a Poke Ball from your inventory. Roll plus that ball's catching stat, minus the target Pokemon's will. On a 10+, catch the Pokemon and it becomes tamed. On a 7-9, you catch the Pokemon, but it remains wild.
Train 'Em!
Choose one of your Pokemon. Roll plus your training stat and your bond with that Pokemon, minus the Pokemon's will. On a 10+, choose two of the following. On a 7-9, choose one. No Pokemon may be trained more than once per scene.
•Level the Pokemon up, provided you have the XP.
•Add 1 to one of its combat stats, and 1 to its will.
•Use a TM or HM from your inventory to teach the Pokemon a new move.
•Prepare a new moveset for that Pokemon.
•The Pokemon is no longer considered wild.
•Replenish your Pokemon's PP up to its Bond.
Battle 'Em!
Anytime you send a Pokemon into combat, roll plus that Pokemon's battling stat and its bond, minus its will. On a 10+, the Pokemon will obey your instructions for the remainder of the combat scene. On a 7-9, it will obey your instructions for this round, but you must make another Battle 'Em! roll at the start of the next round to control it.
Bond
Whenever you attempt to form a closer bond with one of your Pokemon, roll plus that Pokemon's bonding stat and its bond, minus its will. On a 10+, it gains +2 bond. On a 7-9, only add 1 bond. A Pokemon's bond rating may never exceed its will.
Show Off
Whenever you try to demonstrate your physical or mental prowess in an impressive way, roll plus Perseverance, Knowledge, or Muscles, whichever is more relevant. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•You don't hurt or embarrass yourself.
•You impress one person of your choice.
•You distract one person of your choice.
Get Physical
Whenever you attempt a feat of physical strength or dexterity, roll plus Muscles. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•You don't hurt or embarrass yourself.
•Lift or move something heavy.
•Outrun something fast.
•Dodge something headed your way.
Talk It Out
Whenever you try to solve a problem through talking to another person instead of resorting to force or Pokemon battles, roll plus Negotiation. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•Convince them that what you're saying is true (whether it actually is or not).
•Convince them to help you out with some modest task.
•Learn a piece of useful information from them.
•Disguise your intentions.
Think It Over
Whenever you apply your intellect or education to a problem, roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask two of the following questions. On a 7-9, ask one.
•Is there anything dangerous in this situation that I haven't noticed yet?
•Do I have anything in my inventory that would be particularly useful here?
•Have I made any wrong assumptions in this situation?
•What happened here recently?
•What's about to happen?
Pitch In
Whenever you try to assist another player in a difficult task, roll. On a 10+, that player gets a +1 to the roll. On a 7-9, the GM should present you with a cost. If you accept the cost, that player gets a +1 to the roll. Only one player may Pitch In during any given move.
Search Around
Whenever you search an area you have not searched before, roll. On a 10+, the GM should offer you a choice between two things you might find. On a 7-9, the GM chooses what you find.
Oh god, now I'm imagining starting a battle and 1d4 rounds later you either go lost wingman or inadvertent IMC and have to get everyone home by scud running while vulnerable to ground fire.
I wish I could both agree and awesome. That scenario is essentially what it meant to fight in the Korean war.
That's what flying in North Dakota is like, without the enemies. A low level tactical sortie consists of finding your turn points (because in a land filled with ponds they're all bad, and your co-pilots should feel bad) and dodging birds and ice during spring and fall. Summer and winter are just avoiding any precautionary landings so you don't get West Nile from the mosquitoes or freeze to death before maintenance can clean your chip detectors.
To chime in on the air combat discussion, while this is focusing on much older planes, what I've heard is a very fun and playable system while capturing the heart of older dogfights is the Bag The Hun system from Too Fat Lardies, which models WW2 aerial dogfights. This could be useful to anyone trying to implement a combat system that is more similar to the space dogfights from a Star Wars style game.
Three Moves Ahead had a good podcast episode on it a while back, but the jist is: hex based combat, altitude is reduced is 6 bands (tracked by a d6 net to each plane), turn order is based on card draws instead of Ugo-Igo, the trick is, if you get a more advantageous position (higher altitude, in a blind spot, etc) you get extra cards in the deck. You get essentially additional turns relative to the other players as you abuse your better position. Is it realistic? Not really. Does it reward the tactics of the period? For sure.
Apparently they put out a Korean War Supplement in their seasonal special, but, the podcast episode didn't speak to that so I can't speak to it's quality.
Just thought I'd mention it as a system to look at for ideas.
+4
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
So OC do not steal: I made a miniboss in Dark Heresy for my players that I kind of fell in love with. I now want to play him as a PC.
When designing the module climax for my players, I wanted a number of minibosses so the final battle could be dynamic. The adventure had been mostly investigative and combat free, so I thought they and the allies they’re given could handle it. The minibosses would affect the battlefield by flanking the acolytes and their allies, distracting them, and giving a reason for the acolytes to chase them through the spire and have a showdown with them. I wanted one of these to be a quick, agile western gunslinger type character. He would contrast against a berserker type and a miiltary commander type.
What I came up with was a kung-fu, western, amoral mercenary. He’s got black jeans, black duster, grey vest, white shirt, black bandanna, and black hat. The bandanna over his face hides horrific burns. In his duster he keeps five revolvers and a unique handcannon called “Big Iron” that has six chambers and is reliable. He has 36 chambers of death, total. He has all those because he has a superstition about reloading. As in he has to pass a willpower test to reload. He gained that after the event that gave him his face. He hates lawmen because of that event. Along with his guns, he has a shockwhip and is trained in a martial art called Shuiniu style he learned on his home planet.
He comes from a frontier world called Bianjing that is like a Firefly mix of American western and Chinese. Although, unrelated to DH, I could tweak him to fit in a number of settings if I ever get to play him as a PC.
He has a genteel demeanor that hides a blood thirsty fighter. He is generally polite to all he talks to, and if someone isn’t necessary to kill for the job he’ll give them a chance to leave, but in the middle of a fight he revels in the bloodshed. He’ll start taunting, laughing, and even singing once he’s pulled into it. If his bandanna rips off, it shows a nightmarish, burnt, smiling face.
I started with calling him the Buffalo Soldier, but thought that was insensitive to give an amoral mercenary type the name of a segregated shat upon military unit. I wanted to give him something based on the influences that helped me make him. So I went a little Jojo again.
His name is Wu Tang.
Edit: I was reading this forum thread tangentially related to character concepts. Apparently, a player in a DH game made a Sam Fisher sneaky stab man that went everywhere with a knife. He apparenly didn’t quite understand the stealth rules and would run in open combat trying to knife people. Now the GM did wonder if the player was cheating since he seemed to keep getting his called shots and this was played over VOIP. That’s totally understandable. My irritation comes from people saying that a Sam Fisher type didn’t fit in a 40k game, with one saying that the GM should try his best to kill him and tell him to make a character that actually fits in the setting.
Unless a character concept makes players uncomfortable or enjoy the game less, I don’t like the idea of saying that a certain concept doesn’t fit a supposed orthodoxy. Now there are times the GM should let the players know that some types of characters are off limits. A puritanical Inquisitor would not allow eldar or kroot to be among his acolytes. Maybe if your player has his mind set and you’re obliging you can work around this by having a radical inquisitor, but have xenos player be persecuted in-game if his true identty is known.
My issue with is that Sam Fisher types totally do exist and in 1E you could spec into an Officio Assassinorum agent. 2E gives you a class called Assassin that lets you be a sneak man and there are a lot of feats and skills to make you excel at being one. I could give you a full list but that would be a long paragraph.
40k’s nature is like a buffet with all your favorite stuff. A lot of stuff goes. One example, you could make the equivalent of a charming Cyberpunk 2027 rocker boy that buffs his allies by going (un)sanctioned psyker and spec into social skills and command, protective and buffing powers, make a guitar and amp with a psy-focus built in, and invest into trade “performancer”.
There’s also nothing wrong with going traditional or having conventional roles either. I, being an asshole, used to decry how boring fighter/warrior types were in DnD and DH (moreso in DH with its increased investigative gameplay). I used to scoff at playing jedi in EoE. I heard recently that a player who left my DnD group was making fun of another character for having a “boring” charming bard type. I’ve come around on that. Conventional or unconventional, a player’s enjoyment is important and his concept is part of that. It’s his fantasy too. People should respect that.
Edit: obviously don’t ask to play something excessively outrageous like a hive tyrant or dragon. Unless that’s the tone the GM sets.
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
Quick question regarding combat moves and looking things up for my Pokemon hack. I'm going to continue putting these posts in spoiler tags so they'll be as easy to skip as possible for people who aren't interested.
Moves are standardized. That is, Tackle does the same thing for every Pokemon, regardless of their type, stats, etc. As such, I'm creating a central reference list for myself as I define new combat moves because it's easier to verify that I haven't defined the same move in two different ways.
Given that I'm creating a reference list, would it make sense to stop writing out the rules for each move on the individual playbooks? That way, I could just write "MOVE: Tail Whip" on a playbook, and if the player isn't sure how that one works, they can pull it up on the alphabetized list. The playbooks themselves would look cleaner this way, and I could include more move options for each species since they would take up less room. The cost, of course, is a very slight amount of lookup work.
Which option is better? Verbose but messy, or clean but fiddly?
Post lacked gesturing with hands to explain complex maneuvers; 2/10
See, you don't use your hands, you gotta use the sticks! That's what they're there for. Also, traditionally air superiority squadrons use blackboards with colored chalk. Us multi-role guys don't have time for that shit though so we use whiteboards and markers. We fighter pilots think we're really cool, but taken from afar we've got some weird practices. Speaking of, thanks for the segue into part II, the culture.
I'm searching for a quote, made by a former chief of staff iirc, that says that a fighter pilot must possess a certain level of arrogance. Certainly Confidence is a no-shit gradable event during training. But the motto for Weapons School Officers (the USAF equivalent of Top Gun) is "Humble, Approachable, Credible." I found a few sites as I was searching for the quote talking about fighter pilot traits, and I think you could sum it up as 'be Captain America.' We have to compete to get into flight school, and then compete again to get a fighter assignment, and consequently we're told that we're the best the Air Force has to offer. The competition does lend a lot of credibility to the claim, but it leads to a lot of lieutenants and captains severely overestimating their own abilities as well as severely underestimating the abilities other platforms and specialties in the military. I don't know for sure if this is the case, but I think a lot of this stems from the Korean War.
Once the MiG-15 entered the fight, daylight bombing runs were severely curtailed. And while the F-86 could (and frequently did) make bombing runs, they couldn't do so with the lethality needed to seriously shift the war. The truth of air superiority is that you either have it or you don't, and the other truth is that winning air-to-air fights only matters so far as it allows you to drop bombs directly on the enemy's military centers of gravity (things like command centers, maintenance and storage facilities, airfields, etc.). If you're just flying around to shoot down other airplanes... How do I explain it? It's like pvp in MMOs that isn't on objectives. You're just fucking around for glory. But the weird thing about the Korean war is that's exactly what they did. The air campaign became a sort of national sport and the top aces became living heroes, guaranteeing their advancement to the highest ranks. Added to the potentially fatal consequences for losing, the fame and rewards of getting an air victory consumed the pilots on both sides fostering fierce competition among both friends and enemies.
With that in mind, I really like the idea off exploring the fatigue and mental damage that extended war may visit upon someone, but I'd like to say upfront that PTSD and other disorders are relatively rare in the community by my understanding. I've killed in combat, and I consider myself to be a very well adjusted person with plenty of empathy. The fantasy of killing taking its toll on your humanity or whatever is something I've heard often from a lot of my players, but for most of us that just doesn't seem to be the case. That being said, I think stress makes for some great gameplay mechanics that would be fun to explore over the course of a game. Something like a trait or personality system that had characters accumulate stress from various sources, but also offered some risky activities to relieve it would be fun. Maybe the type A guy needs to get a MiG kill, and the type B guy only loses stress if he can go a sortie without being shot at. To promote that kind of play I'd have each player be a flight lead with NPC wingman who could act as ablative health or lives... at the cost of a lot of stress. Naturally stress could be influence both positively and negatively from the squadron commander, the player's subordinates, and of course letters from home. I think something like this is key if you want to explore the horrors of the Cold War
The last thing to talk about is one of the traditions that is said to have started back in WWII, and even if that's not the case it's still too cool of a tradition not to include: the Roll Call. Legend has it that Roll Calls started after taps played each day on base. The squadron would gather round and the commander would read off all the names of the squadron members, each calling out "here" as their names were read. If silence followed, you knew your comrade didn't make it home that day, and all gathered would raise a silent toast in their honor. Luckily in modern times, death is relatively rare in the squadron (but still a part of every aviator's life) and Roll Call has become more of a fun stress relieving activity where all the bros (and bro-ettes) gather round, consume liberal amounts of alcohol, and tell stories with only minor alterations (all for the sake of humor) about buffoonery observed or committed by their comrades. In-game I'd do the same: read off the names of all the players and NPCs (with the players calling 'here' for themselves and their wingman) and then giving each a chance to retell their favorite part of the game, and maybe rewarding good stories (humorous or venerating) with a little stress relief.
That's about all I got for now. Questions are always open, or feel free to shoot me a PM. The only other thing I'll add is that I rewatched Porco Rosso tonight, and while the dogfighting isn't totally accurate, it's pretty dang close, so check that out for some inspiration if you'd like.
飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
+6
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Quick question regarding combat moves and looking things up for my Pokemon hack. I'm going to continue putting these posts in spoiler tags so they'll be as easy to skip as possible for people who aren't interested.
Moves are standardized. That is, Tackle does the same thing for every Pokemon, regardless of their type, stats, etc. As such, I'm creating a central reference list for myself as I define new combat moves because it's easier to verify that I haven't defined the same move in two different ways.
Given that I'm creating a reference list, would it make sense to stop writing out the rules for each move on the individual playbooks? That way, I could just write "MOVE: Tail Whip" on a playbook, and if the player isn't sure how that one works, they can pull it up on the alphabetized list. The playbooks themselves would look cleaner this way, and I could include more move options for each species since they would take up less room. The cost, of course, is a very slight amount of lookup work.
Which option is better? Verbose but messy, or clean but fiddly?
@italianranma I was going to say, I'm not sure how many humble and approachable Patches I've met.
I'm really enjoying your write-ups on the subject matter (which is fair, considering the subject matter is You). Once again, nobody wants to make helicopter games.
Edit: Weird, I wrote more and it was deleted. Anywho, I really like the idea of Flight Lead and Wingman Considerations mechanics, and it would be great to have someone to tell you when you're on fire...and hopefully not drag them through any ground fire.
If you guys wanted, I'd be absolutely down to collaborate on this stuff in a Google Doc and I'd slink away if I had no good ideas.
Edit2: Oh god, I should've known you'd bring up Dos Gringos!
Quick question regarding combat moves and looking things up for my Pokemon hack. I'm going to continue putting these posts in spoiler tags so they'll be as easy to skip as possible for people who aren't interested.
Moves are standardized. That is, Tackle does the same thing for every Pokemon, regardless of their type, stats, etc. As such, I'm creating a central reference list for myself as I define new combat moves because it's easier to verify that I haven't defined the same move in two different ways.
Given that I'm creating a reference list, would it make sense to stop writing out the rules for each move on the individual playbooks? That way, I could just write "MOVE: Tail Whip" on a playbook, and if the player isn't sure how that one works, they can pull it up on the alphabetized list. The playbooks themselves would look cleaner this way, and I could include more move options for each species since they would take up less room. The cost, of course, is a very slight amount of lookup work.
Which option is better? Verbose but messy, or clean but fiddly?
I'm personally dislike having to go through a long list, like 3.5 or 5E spell list. And I really don't want to alarm you, but there are more moves than Pokemon, so that list is going to be super long. If you aren't planning on doing all 802 Pokemon, it might be better to just put all the move information on the sheet.
Quick question regarding combat moves and looking things up for my Pokemon hack. I'm going to continue putting these posts in spoiler tags so they'll be as easy to skip as possible for people who aren't interested.
Moves are standardized. That is, Tackle does the same thing for every Pokemon, regardless of their type, stats, etc. As such, I'm creating a central reference list for myself as I define new combat moves because it's easier to verify that I haven't defined the same move in two different ways.
Given that I'm creating a reference list, would it make sense to stop writing out the rules for each move on the individual playbooks? That way, I could just write "MOVE: Tail Whip" on a playbook, and if the player isn't sure how that one works, they can pull it up on the alphabetized list. The playbooks themselves would look cleaner this way, and I could include more move options for each species since they would take up less room. The cost, of course, is a very slight amount of lookup work.
Which option is better? Verbose but messy, or clean but fiddly?
I like the clean look, but like Grunt's Ghosts noted you could be dealing with a very large amount of moves, I'd also argue that one of the nice things about Dungeon World is that you don't really need to know much beyond what's on your playbook sheet - having to reference a (potentially very large) list of moves, especially in live play, could be a bit much (Having run a lot of PTA, having 65 pages of moves to flip through was... not great).
That said, a lot of Pokemon moves are remarkably similar to one another in some respects, which I took advantage of by utilizing keywords to shorten the description of the moves (much like Dungeon World's "Weapon Tags" like Piercing, Messy, Reach, and so on).
For instance, for Rattatas Tail Whip, instead of "Normal, +Spd vs. Def, 7-9: 1 Def drain, 10+: 2 Def Drain" you could shorten it to "Normal, Precise, Drain (Def)" where "Precise" indicates that it's "+Spd vs. Def" and "Drain (Def)" means that on a 7-9 you drain 1 def and on a 10+ drain 2.
Rather than needing a separate entry in a movedex for, say, Growl, you could just have "Growl, Normal, Precise, Drain (Atk)" and have it pretty obvious what it does and how (assuming you know what "precise" and "Drain" mean) without needing to look something up or have it take up a lot of space on the sheet.
You still need a reference document for the the Tags... but it'll be significantly shorter and easier to memorize (or flip through), and leaves open the option to still use space to explain unique, complicated moves that maybe only Pokemon will ever have (perhaps that even balances them out a bit. A particularly strong move that takes space to explain means less room for other moves on the sheet).
Posts
the Imperium is vastly intolerant of people who break their rules. If you invest a toaster and they don't have time to deal with it now, they will deal with it when they can. Name goes on a list.
But the Imperium are 100% not good guys. They are about as nightmarish as it is possible to get. It's just that for most humans, you can avoid attracting their attention and, if you live on a decent planet, live a relatively normal and maybe even happy life. It does happen. Probably happens a lot. Just not when the Imperium get involved and indeed on many planets where they don't life is still very toss.
The only thing more nightmarish than the Imperium would be that, in the 40K setting, if the Imperium didn't exist humanity would become a nightmarish playground for the demons of the warp and alien predators, as isolated human systems get torn apart and psykers without control of their abilities unleash demon worlds all over the place. That's basically the reason the Imperium exists; protect humanity from aliens and their own uncontrolled psychic talent. The only reason they exist is as they do now is because they inherit a stagnant and unchanging culture which recruits people that will perpetuate it indefinitely, and because they believe that humanity must be preserved as a whole, and any part of humanity which gets in the way of that, or must be sacrificed to do that, is disposable. Originally it was horrific but rational, in the 41st millenium it is horrific but irrational, a rotting corpse of a society.
The Imperium has multiple heroic people and places ideals on courage and self-sacrifice.
There’s like hundreds of cultures across the Imperium.
I don’t consider their stagnancy to be a slow death.
They’re not Ingsoc or the Xeelee Wars people where they use power just for power’s sake or send a billion child soldiers to fight an obviously impossible fight.
Don't comissars literally kill their own men if they turn back from an unwinable fight?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
As I've said, what you're hitting here is the clash between people who started following 40k fluff with 80s/90s material, and the fluff that started with the Black Library in the 00s.
They are so dramatically different that we can all be right.
1. When prepping a new area, the GM writes the area's name (ex:"Route 1") at the top of the sheet. Below, there's a table with 13 rows, marked 1-13. These represent rolls, and each one is labeled with the probability of rolling that specific number using 2d6.
"But @WACr--" I know, gimme a second.
On each row, the GM writes a Pokemon species. The same species can be written on multiple rows for increased chances of finding it. When the players are in a situation where a random encounter makes sense, just roll 2d6 with no modifiers and throw one or more of the resulting species at them.
2. The 1 and 13 slots are for exceptionally rare Pokemon like legendaries, or Pokemon who might not be easily found in the area but could be specifically hunted. But it's impossible to roll either of those numbers on 2d6, so how could they ever be found? The answer: With bait.
So you go to a PokeMart, and in addition to different kinds of balls, potions, and such, they've now got different kinds of bait. Maybe there's an Electric-type bait. Maybe there's a bait specifically geared toward Goldeen. So anyway, you buy some Flying-type bait, because you've heard rumors of an exceptionally powerful bird Pokemon living in a nearby valley, but nobody's really sure what it is. You go out to hunt, and use some of this bait. Now, because of the bait, your roll is modified with an automatic +/-1 if there's a Flying-type on an adjacent row. You roll a 12, and because the legendary bird is on the 13th row, you get a chance to fight and possibly catch Moltres.
3. There will also be moves for some playbooks that allow you to enjoy the same effects even without bait in certain circumstances. For instance, the Enthusiast playbook chooses a specific type as their specialty at character creation, and picks up moves related to that specialty as they level up. "I Know How They Think" will allow you to act as though you're always carrying bait for your specialty.
4. The encounter sheet will likely contain multiple columns for different sections of an area. For instance, there could be a general column for Route 1 that just indicates which Pokemon are widely distributed across it, but then additional columns for a cavern near its east end, for fishing in its largest lake, for the abandoned factory beside that lake, etc. In addition to helping the GM form a clearer picture of the area, this chart can be referenced when answering certain questions from the "Consult Your Pokedex" move. Players who are into note-taking can use blank versions of the sheet to mark down which species they encounter in a given area.
Imperial citizens that were too strong psychically to maintain their powers or too weak to control them that would explode into daemons and doom entire planets to sectors. It’s almost a mercy for them since their souls would have been consumed by a daemon.
Also that Emperor’s “False Life” keeps the Imperium’s most important navigation and communication system open, and with his psychic presence has redirected ships and made living saints that won wars. Faith in him can give daemons pause, the ability for the faithful’s flame to not harm his allies, and keep a universe wide galactic empire from tearing itself apart.
Edit: in terms of actual roleplaying, I guess it’s like how comics and novels change perspective on characters and universes. GMing is similar. Admanb is right in that there’s not a definitive answer.
Edit 2:
Yeah, and those former ganger punks become defenders of humanity, becoming monsters to get rid of worse monsters. Also Space Marines don’t just conscript people but also allow volunteers and people who prove themselves worthy. What is really better, dying from lead poisoning in a hole at the bottom of Necromunda or sacrificing one’s life to stop an arch heretic from dooming an entire sector?
Commissars do that, and in Cain and Gaunt novels not often, because they have to be feared more than the monsters and terrors the guard face. The guard have to face them so billions back home don’t die. Commissars don’t just kill troopers when it suits their fancy, they’re supposed to lead by example at the front and instill loyalty and bravery. If one dead trooper can scare the rest of a platoon to keep firing just long enough so reinforcements can make it in time and not lose a valued strategic position or asset, that’s what they’ll do.
Or 'holy shit, is that a fucking Moltres, I'm level 15, what the fuck, I don't want to die.'
But I passionately hate anything random and run PbPs as a matter of course so anything that could delay an actually meaningful update by a week or more gets snippety snapped instanter. Also I've never seen a route get visited more than once (per player who's looking for an addition to their team, mind), so blocking out thirteen encounters for it seem like an excess of invested time, but then I definitely subscribe to the "you want a flying type? Here's a Pidgey" style, so that rule really ain't my thing to begin with.
Well, and the thing is that if you want to do that, there's no reason you can't. There's no system that breaks without random encounters, just a few moves that players won't take because they're not as useful if you're doing it this way. Also no reason you can't do one sometimes, and the other at other times. Like if the player says she's specifically hunting a Squirtle, you can do that. And if she says she's just interested in fishing up whatever's in the lake, you can roll the dice.
I've definitely had to hit some random generators when players have been less than outspoken about their preferences for an encounter.
I could see bait being tricky if you have a player recalcitrant about spending resources on finding their preferred pokemon when they feel they can just run away and keep looking, though, but that's it's own issue of dealing with an uncooperative player, or communicating encounter expectations, really.
"screw the rules I have moneywrit of marque" and sailing the warp making your fortune exploiting the Imperium is way more enticing than playing either an inquisitorial boot lick or a genetically modified gun zealot
The FFG Star Wars RPG has rules for dogfighting in it as well, but reading through them I didn't get a solid understanding of how the firing arcs came into play or what I could do by outmanuevering. For what it's worth, my buddies and I really like the X-Wing minis games, and draw a lot of parallels to real life dogfighting.
If you're really interested in making a game about role playing a fighter pilot you can ask me any questions. I've been a fighter pilot in the USAF for 11 years.
I didn't look over those rules posted in the other page, it seems like it would be difficult to balance a dogfighting RPG in a triangle with Crunchy Rules, Narrative Experience, and Miniature Combat. You can still find the WW1/2 minis that came before X-Wing. If you could do a co-op campaign of that in the same vein as Heroes of the Aturi Cluster I think it would be legit. Either way I'd use the minis.
I know Fragged Empire does space combat as well, but I haven't looked at those rules in a while. @Albino Bunny would know that side a little better.
The search continues! Thanks for weighing in.
We teach three axioms that are true in any era:
All of what I've described is about Within Visual Range (WVR) combat, more often called Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) (especially in training), though I think a "furball" is more common internationally. Generally we don't use the term 'dogfighting' as it's seen as archaic. The real reality is that these very close visual engagements are about as common in modern war as hand-to-hand combat is on the ground: very uncommon, but you need to be able to do so proficiently at a moment's notice which is why we still practice them (and also they're a lot of fun). Beyond Visual Range (BVR) is a whole different ballgame, highly dependent on the weapons and weapon platform (aka the jet), and where the discussion starts getting into the realm of classified.
How does this translate into a tabletop RPG? I don't have a direct answer. I think you could distill these elements so that they make sense in everything from GURPS to FATE. The characteristics of the jet itself could easily just be equipment bonuses to the individual pilot's skill (which I think is how it works in FFG). My suggestion would be to map your rules to those three axioms: for example you could include a high-risk, high-reward maneuver to make the bandit lose sight so that you get a free turn where he can't maneuver against you (effectively making him stunned), but if that fails, then he gains an advantageous position.
On the other side of the equation, if you want to role-play fighter pilots, you can go with Top Gun. It maps pretty well, especially for its era. I'm happy to provide other things like why you don't want to fly with a guy who's callsign is "Wedge", or that jalapeno popcorn and way to dark coffee is the standard, or why we drink Jack and diet-coke (though coke zero is acceptable).
I'm going to be running a one off about Korean war pilots getting involved in a cold war horror stand off so I will be limiting the system to the WVR combat by virtue of the tech (and it's fun).
I would guess that in long range modern air combat for a realistic system I'd say roll to see if your Jet systems detects them, roll to see if it locks on with your missile system, fire missile, roll countermeasures, and then a hit means a kill.
Which may not be so fun. But I need cold war era for the plot, and I'm thinking 50s or 80s. Tempted by 50s more because it's a bit more old school. What would that be, Sabres?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Eh? You could always steal some ideas from Night Witches. @italianranma I really liked your post, but it felt incomplete without blue and green dry erase markers. Overall Q1!
I’ll start with the fact that the Korean air war isn’t something I’ve ever studied. But I’m looking for a good book anyway so I’ll pick one up and let you know if any of this info changes. I'll also start with a blanket caveat that all of what I'm saying comes from America's perspective.
The F-86 Sabre was the premier US fighter during the war, but at the beginning of the war P-80s and F-82 Twin Mustangs engaged North Korean Lavochkin La-7s and Ilyushin II-10s, aircraft that prior to making this post I had never heard of. Turboprop fighters are very slow to gain energy (both altitude and speed), and though they turn very well (because of relatively high wing loading) their limited speed gives them fleeting shots at best against jet fighters. In fact, the tactics (as I understand them) were to get high and fast and dive through their formations, the relative speeds involved making the turboprop fighters about as easy to hit as a ground vehicle, i.e. easy. Once the Soviet MiG-15 entered the theatre, the straight-winged P-80s were similarly outmatched, and only the F-86 could compete.
The F-86 and MiG-15 are very similar utilizing evolutionary swept wing designs that allowed them to have higher top speeds and the ability to recover from a supersonic dive. The MiG-15 initially had the advantage in both performance and armament. The MiG-15 had 2x23mm cannons and single 37mm cannon: the 23mm were for fighting other fighters and the 37 for destroying bombers. In comparison the F-86's 6x .50" machineguns provided a higher rate of fire at the cost of lower range and far less stopping power. You could in this case give the F-86 a slight accuracy advantage offset by the higher damage and longer range of the MiG-15. I'd stress though that hitting a maneuvering (or even a non-maneuvering fighter at long range) was just about impossible with that 37mm. The F-86 continued to receive improvements culminating with the F-86F (sometimes called the "block 40") introducing a larger wing with wing slats that finally gave it a much needed advantage in agility.
Despite the limitations, the F-86 enjoyed a favorable ratio against MiGs of somewhere betwee 10 to 1 or 5 to 1 (air victories were often exaggerated on both sides). This is usually credited to the superior training and experience of American forces. China and North Korea didn't have a large contingent of combat aces from WWII, and their training was often limited to simply taking off, flying in formation, and landing. The Soviets had experience and better training, but still not up to par, and eventually their experienced vets were mostly replaced by rookies.
With the background out of the way I'll talk a little bit about the daily ops, dogfighting, and culture, which I again will state that I'm not an expert on. I did get to meet Boots Blesse and hear him talk about the time he shot down 3 MiGs in a day, so I'll relate some of what he talked about.
I'll let you do the research on the various air-bases that your players will operate out of, but I'll bet that the daily life is pretty similar no matter where you're at. I'm pretty sure during this time period all the pilots lived in dorms on base. They eat at a flight-line chow hall that they may share with the maintainers or potentially with the rest of the base, though they could have their own private dining hall. They probably fly once or twice a day for four hour missions. The mission briefing starts with an Intelligence officer who shows the big map with all the known enemy artillery positions, especially the Anti-Aircraft Artillery (written as AAA but pronounced "Triple A"), and suspected fighter positions, along with a recap of the notable flying events from yesterday. The flight lead will then give his briefing on what contracts he wants his wingman to follow, and the flight will review the mission set and the products before stepping to the jets. The various mission sets are:
- Air-Interdiction (AI) where they take jets loaded with bombs and rockets to destroy artillery positions, supply camps, troop formations, and convoys
- Escort where they fly with B-29 or B-26 bombers to protect them
- and Sweep where they fly looking for enemy fighters to destroy
For products, either intel or the pilots themselves will take maps and draw in big black lines their route of flight, a get-well position (used to find the formation again if someone gets lost), and emergency landing fields.I couldn't find how many radios the F-86 had, so I'm going to assume one only. After takeoff the flight switches to a common frequency for all US fighters. Command & Control (C2) would then give point-outs in bullseye or geographic location of suspected enemy formations. The flight lead would then "commit" the flight to that fighter group, and probably not talk on the radio again until they had either found the enemy formation or was ready to return to base (RTB). Flights have unique callsigns (which are different than the fighter pilot's personal callsign. Sort of like "Red Squadron" or "Gold Squadron" from Star Wars, you'd probably have "Sabre 11 flight" or "Lancer 21 flight" if the squadron was the 333rd Lancers, for example. Squadrons tend to run on themes, so the Lancers would have something like "Knight flight", "Axe Flight", "Charger Flight" etc. The rules for these callsigns are typically that they should sound unique from other callsigns and be two syllables or less, so Knight flight and Fight Flight wouldn't work as they rhyme, nor would "Cavalier Flight" because it's too long. Once the formation found the enemy they'd report back to C2 using saying the location, composition, altitude, and direction: "Sabre 11 engaging 8 fagots, kumsong pass, fifteen thousand, headed south." "Fagot" by the way was the NATO reporting name for the MiG-15 on account of it's cigar shaped body, and fagot being a slang term for cigarette. I couldn't tell you if the word was used derogatorily at that time or not.
Before we get into the dog fighting, we'll continue with the rest of the flight. Navigation at this time relied on radio instruments also known as NAVAIDS (navigational aids), but most flights would learn geographical references and use those as their primary references. That being said, the Korean peninsula is plagued by foul weather, especially in the summer, so navigating by instruments is an important skill. These early instruments weren't always reliable and were difficult to interpret for young pilots as well: so getting lost and running yourself out of fuel is something that could happen. Speaking of fuel I didn't see any stats on ranges or duration, so my guess is that a sortie could be about four-hours total if at high altitude (where the fuel consumption rate is lower) and capping (using a low engine setting). Sabres were equipped with drop tanks that would be jettisoned as soon as the flight became engaged. Without tanks the flight's duration would be cut in half, as would be the case if the engines were in MIL (military power, i.e. max sustainable engine setting) and/or if the formation was flying at low altitude. Managing fuel is a very important skill, even in modern combat, and if you don't go home at BINGO, your in danger of flaming out your engine and crashing.
Formation flying was usually in spread (about 500 ft apart) when not fighting and between 1 to 2 nautical miles (we just say miles, but we mean NM) in tactical formation. Wingmen were required to be visual with the flight lead at all times, checking his six and looking on their own side of the formation for enemies as well. Most communication between formation members was done through visual signals: hand signals when in spread and by wing rocks or porpoising when in tactical. Once in the Furball it became extremely difficult for wingman to keep the visual, but if they did the would often be able to score kills by clearing the flight lead's six: good formation flying and tactics were one of the highest emphasis items for wingman during this time.
Once the MiGs were spotted, usually because of the sun glinting off of that ridiculous chrome paint scheme, the formation would attempt to enter the fight unobserved: usually this meant being either 10,000' higher or lower in elevation (if possible) and gunning the outside or trailing element of the enemy formation. The F-86 was equipped with a computer gunsight that used a range finding radar and computed the bullet path. The F-86's guns were harmonized at 1000', so it had to get about that close to score a kill. The Korean war also introduced the gun cam, so you can find lots of footage of real shoot downs. Once the enemy became aware, that's when the dogfighting really started. Besides what I talked about in my previous post, another important thing to remember is the number one killer of aircraft: the ground. When a pilot becomes too task saturated on their enemy, they can easily lose their spacial awareness and run right into the ground: especially in the mountainous terrain of Korea. Every pilot I know, including me, has at least one friend who's died by running into the ground, and it was even more common back then. That being said there's a lot of great reasons to get down to the ground: mostly because it's extremely difficult and dangerous for an enemy to try to shoot you when you're that low. So, make sure you include those elements in your game.
This post got a bit long, so I'm going to save the cultural discussion for later. For books, I think The Hunters is a good one right? Anyone have any other recommendations?
I wish I could both agree and awesome. That scenario is essentially what it meant to fight in the Korean war.
Post lacked gesturing with hands to explain complex maneuvers; 2/10
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Choose a Pokemon visible to you and roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask your GM two of the questions below. On a 7-9, ask only one. Take +1 forward when acting on any of the answers. Regardless of your roll, the GM should at least tell you the Pokemon's species.
•What are this Pokemon's types?
•What is this Pokemon's will?
•What is this Pokemon's nature?
•Is there anything unusual about this Pokemon's behavior or appearance?
•Is this Pokemon wild or tamed?
•What are this Pokemon's prepared moves?
•What are this Pokemon's highest and lowest stats?
Find 'Em!
Roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask your GM two of the questions below. On a 7-9, ask only one. Take +1 forward when acting on any of the answers.
•What types of Pokemon are typically found in this area?
•What is the species most commonly found in this area?
•What is the species least commonly found in this area?
•Are there any specific locations in this area where I'm likely to find different species?
•Can <specific species> be found in this area?
Catch 'Em!
Choose a wild Pokemon visible to you, and use a Poke Ball from your inventory. Roll plus that ball's catching stat, minus the target Pokemon's will. On a 10+, catch the Pokemon and it becomes tamed. On a 7-9, you catch the Pokemon, but it remains wild.
Train 'Em!
Choose one of your Pokemon. Roll plus your training stat and your bond with that Pokemon, minus the Pokemon's will. On a 10+, choose two of the following. On a 7-9, choose one. No Pokemon may be trained more than once per scene.
•Level the Pokemon up, provided you have the XP.
•Add 1 to one of its combat stats, and 1 to its will.
•Use a TM or HM from your inventory to teach the Pokemon a new move.
•Prepare a new moveset for that Pokemon.
•The Pokemon is no longer considered wild.
•Replenish your Pokemon's PP up to its Bond.
Battle 'Em!
Anytime you send a Pokemon into combat, roll plus that Pokemon's battling stat and its bond, minus its will. On a 10+, the Pokemon will obey your instructions for the remainder of the combat scene. On a 7-9, it will obey your instructions for this round, but you must make another Battle 'Em! roll at the start of the next round to control it.
Bond
Whenever you attempt to form a closer bond with one of your Pokemon, roll plus that Pokemon's bonding stat and its bond, minus its will. On a 10+, it gains +2 bond. On a 7-9, only add 1 bond. A Pokemon's bond rating may never exceed its will.
Show Off
Whenever you try to demonstrate your physical or mental prowess in an impressive way, roll plus Perseverance, Knowledge, or Muscles, whichever is more relevant. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•You don't hurt or embarrass yourself.
•You impress one person of your choice.
•You distract one person of your choice.
Get Physical
Whenever you attempt a feat of physical strength or dexterity, roll plus Muscles. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•You don't hurt or embarrass yourself.
•Lift or move something heavy.
•Outrun something fast.
•Dodge something headed your way.
Talk It Out
Whenever you try to solve a problem through talking to another person instead of resorting to force or Pokemon battles, roll plus Negotiation. On a 10+, pick 2 of the following. On a 7-9, pick 1.
•Convince them that what you're saying is true (whether it actually is or not).
•Convince them to help you out with some modest task.
•Learn a piece of useful information from them.
•Disguise your intentions.
Think It Over
Whenever you apply your intellect or education to a problem, roll plus Knowledge. On a 10+, ask two of the following questions. On a 7-9, ask one.
•Is there anything dangerous in this situation that I haven't noticed yet?
•Do I have anything in my inventory that would be particularly useful here?
•Have I made any wrong assumptions in this situation?
•What happened here recently?
•What's about to happen?
Pitch In
Whenever you try to assist another player in a difficult task, roll. On a 10+, that player gets a +1 to the roll. On a 7-9, the GM should present you with a cost. If you accept the cost, that player gets a +1 to the roll. Only one player may Pitch In during any given move.
Search Around
Whenever you search an area you have not searched before, roll. On a 10+, the GM should offer you a choice between two things you might find. On a 7-9, the GM chooses what you find.
That's what flying in North Dakota is like, without the enemies. A low level tactical sortie consists of finding your turn points (because in a land filled with ponds they're all bad, and your co-pilots should feel bad) and dodging birds and ice during spring and fall. Summer and winter are just avoiding any precautionary landings so you don't get West Nile from the mosquitoes or freeze to death before maintenance can clean your chip detectors.
Three Moves Ahead had a good podcast episode on it a while back, but the jist is: hex based combat, altitude is reduced is 6 bands (tracked by a d6 net to each plane), turn order is based on card draws instead of Ugo-Igo, the trick is, if you get a more advantageous position (higher altitude, in a blind spot, etc) you get extra cards in the deck. You get essentially additional turns relative to the other players as you abuse your better position. Is it realistic? Not really. Does it reward the tactics of the period? For sure.
Apparently they put out a Korean War Supplement in their seasonal special, but, the podcast episode didn't speak to that so I can't speak to it's quality.
Just thought I'd mention it as a system to look at for ideas.
When designing the module climax for my players, I wanted a number of minibosses so the final battle could be dynamic. The adventure had been mostly investigative and combat free, so I thought they and the allies they’re given could handle it. The minibosses would affect the battlefield by flanking the acolytes and their allies, distracting them, and giving a reason for the acolytes to chase them through the spire and have a showdown with them. I wanted one of these to be a quick, agile western gunslinger type character. He would contrast against a berserker type and a miiltary commander type.
What I came up with was a kung-fu, western, amoral mercenary. He’s got black jeans, black duster, grey vest, white shirt, black bandanna, and black hat. The bandanna over his face hides horrific burns. In his duster he keeps five revolvers and a unique handcannon called “Big Iron” that has six chambers and is reliable. He has 36 chambers of death, total. He has all those because he has a superstition about reloading. As in he has to pass a willpower test to reload. He gained that after the event that gave him his face. He hates lawmen because of that event. Along with his guns, he has a shockwhip and is trained in a martial art called Shuiniu style he learned on his home planet.
He comes from a frontier world called Bianjing that is like a Firefly mix of American western and Chinese. Although, unrelated to DH, I could tweak him to fit in a number of settings if I ever get to play him as a PC.
He has a genteel demeanor that hides a blood thirsty fighter. He is generally polite to all he talks to, and if someone isn’t necessary to kill for the job he’ll give them a chance to leave, but in the middle of a fight he revels in the bloodshed. He’ll start taunting, laughing, and even singing once he’s pulled into it. If his bandanna rips off, it shows a nightmarish, burnt, smiling face.
I started with calling him the Buffalo Soldier, but thought that was insensitive to give an amoral mercenary type the name of a segregated shat upon military unit. I wanted to give him something based on the influences that helped me make him. So I went a little Jojo again.
His name is Wu Tang.
Edit: I was reading this forum thread tangentially related to character concepts. Apparently, a player in a DH game made a Sam Fisher sneaky stab man that went everywhere with a knife. He apparenly didn’t quite understand the stealth rules and would run in open combat trying to knife people. Now the GM did wonder if the player was cheating since he seemed to keep getting his called shots and this was played over VOIP. That’s totally understandable. My irritation comes from people saying that a Sam Fisher type didn’t fit in a 40k game, with one saying that the GM should try his best to kill him and tell him to make a character that actually fits in the setting.
Unless a character concept makes players uncomfortable or enjoy the game less, I don’t like the idea of saying that a certain concept doesn’t fit a supposed orthodoxy. Now there are times the GM should let the players know that some types of characters are off limits. A puritanical Inquisitor would not allow eldar or kroot to be among his acolytes. Maybe if your player has his mind set and you’re obliging you can work around this by having a radical inquisitor, but have xenos player be persecuted in-game if his true identty is known.
My issue with is that Sam Fisher types totally do exist and in 1E you could spec into an Officio Assassinorum agent. 2E gives you a class called Assassin that lets you be a sneak man and there are a lot of feats and skills to make you excel at being one. I could give you a full list but that would be a long paragraph.
40k’s nature is like a buffet with all your favorite stuff. A lot of stuff goes. One example, you could make the equivalent of a charming Cyberpunk 2027 rocker boy that buffs his allies by going (un)sanctioned psyker and spec into social skills and command, protective and buffing powers, make a guitar and amp with a psy-focus built in, and invest into trade “performancer”.
There’s also nothing wrong with going traditional or having conventional roles either. I, being an asshole, used to decry how boring fighter/warrior types were in DnD and DH (moreso in DH with its increased investigative gameplay). I used to scoff at playing jedi in EoE. I heard recently that a player who left my DnD group was making fun of another character for having a “boring” charming bard type. I’ve come around on that. Conventional or unconventional, a player’s enjoyment is important and his concept is part of that. It’s his fantasy too. People should respect that.
Edit: obviously don’t ask to play something excessively outrageous like a hive tyrant or dragon. Unless that’s the tone the GM sets.
Given that I'm creating a reference list, would it make sense to stop writing out the rules for each move on the individual playbooks? That way, I could just write "MOVE: Tail Whip" on a playbook, and if the player isn't sure how that one works, they can pull it up on the alphabetized list. The playbooks themselves would look cleaner this way, and I could include more move options for each species since they would take up less room. The cost, of course, is a very slight amount of lookup work.
Which option is better? Verbose but messy, or clean but fiddly?
I'm searching for a quote, made by a former chief of staff iirc, that says that a fighter pilot must possess a certain level of arrogance. Certainly Confidence is a no-shit gradable event during training. But the motto for Weapons School Officers (the USAF equivalent of Top Gun) is "Humble, Approachable, Credible." I found a few sites as I was searching for the quote talking about fighter pilot traits, and I think you could sum it up as 'be Captain America.' We have to compete to get into flight school, and then compete again to get a fighter assignment, and consequently we're told that we're the best the Air Force has to offer. The competition does lend a lot of credibility to the claim, but it leads to a lot of lieutenants and captains severely overestimating their own abilities as well as severely underestimating the abilities other platforms and specialties in the military. I don't know for sure if this is the case, but I think a lot of this stems from the Korean War.
Once the MiG-15 entered the fight, daylight bombing runs were severely curtailed. And while the F-86 could (and frequently did) make bombing runs, they couldn't do so with the lethality needed to seriously shift the war. The truth of air superiority is that you either have it or you don't, and the other truth is that winning air-to-air fights only matters so far as it allows you to drop bombs directly on the enemy's military centers of gravity (things like command centers, maintenance and storage facilities, airfields, etc.). If you're just flying around to shoot down other airplanes... How do I explain it? It's like pvp in MMOs that isn't on objectives. You're just fucking around for glory. But the weird thing about the Korean war is that's exactly what they did. The air campaign became a sort of national sport and the top aces became living heroes, guaranteeing their advancement to the highest ranks. Added to the potentially fatal consequences for losing, the fame and rewards of getting an air victory consumed the pilots on both sides fostering fierce competition among both friends and enemies.
With that in mind, I really like the idea off exploring the fatigue and mental damage that extended war may visit upon someone, but I'd like to say upfront that PTSD and other disorders are relatively rare in the community by my understanding. I've killed in combat, and I consider myself to be a very well adjusted person with plenty of empathy. The fantasy of killing taking its toll on your humanity or whatever is something I've heard often from a lot of my players, but for most of us that just doesn't seem to be the case. That being said, I think stress makes for some great gameplay mechanics that would be fun to explore over the course of a game. Something like a trait or personality system that had characters accumulate stress from various sources, but also offered some risky activities to relieve it would be fun. Maybe the type A guy needs to get a MiG kill, and the type B guy only loses stress if he can go a sortie without being shot at. To promote that kind of play I'd have each player be a flight lead with NPC wingman who could act as ablative health or lives... at the cost of a lot of stress. Naturally stress could be influence both positively and negatively from the squadron commander, the player's subordinates, and of course letters from home. I think something like this is key if you want to explore the horrors of the Cold War
The last thing to talk about is one of the traditions that is said to have started back in WWII, and even if that's not the case it's still too cool of a tradition not to include: the Roll Call. Legend has it that Roll Calls started after taps played each day on base. The squadron would gather round and the commander would read off all the names of the squadron members, each calling out "here" as their names were read. If silence followed, you knew your comrade didn't make it home that day, and all gathered would raise a silent toast in their honor. Luckily in modern times, death is relatively rare in the squadron (but still a part of every aviator's life) and Roll Call has become more of a fun stress relieving activity where all the bros (and bro-ettes) gather round, consume liberal amounts of alcohol, and tell stories with only minor alterations (all for the sake of humor) about buffoonery observed or committed by their comrades. In-game I'd do the same: read off the names of all the players and NPCs (with the players calling 'here' for themselves and their wingman) and then giving each a chance to retell their favorite part of the game, and maybe rewarding good stories (humorous or venerating) with a little stress relief.
That's about all I got for now. Questions are always open, or feel free to shoot me a PM. The only other thing I'll add is that I rewatched Porco Rosso tonight, and while the dogfighting isn't totally accurate, it's pretty dang close, so check that out for some inspiration if you'd like.
Probably in the long run, Clean but Fiddly
I'm really enjoying your write-ups on the subject matter (which is fair, considering the subject matter is You). Once again, nobody wants to make helicopter games.
Edit: Weird, I wrote more and it was deleted. Anywho, I really like the idea of Flight Lead and Wingman Considerations mechanics, and it would be great to have someone to tell you when you're on fire...and hopefully not drag them through any ground fire.
If you guys wanted, I'd be absolutely down to collaborate on this stuff in a Google Doc and I'd slink away if I had no good ideas.
Edit2: Oh god, I should've known you'd bring up Dos Gringos!
I'm personally dislike having to go through a long list, like 3.5 or 5E spell list. And I really don't want to alarm you, but there are more moves than Pokemon, so that list is going to be super long. If you aren't planning on doing all 802 Pokemon, it might be better to just put all the move information on the sheet.
I like the clean look, but like Grunt's Ghosts noted you could be dealing with a very large amount of moves, I'd also argue that one of the nice things about Dungeon World is that you don't really need to know much beyond what's on your playbook sheet - having to reference a (potentially very large) list of moves, especially in live play, could be a bit much (Having run a lot of PTA, having 65 pages of moves to flip through was... not great).
That said, a lot of Pokemon moves are remarkably similar to one another in some respects, which I took advantage of by utilizing keywords to shorten the description of the moves (much like Dungeon World's "Weapon Tags" like Piercing, Messy, Reach, and so on).
For instance, for Rattatas Tail Whip, instead of "Normal, +Spd vs. Def, 7-9: 1 Def drain, 10+: 2 Def Drain" you could shorten it to "Normal, Precise, Drain (Def)" where "Precise" indicates that it's "+Spd vs. Def" and "Drain (Def)" means that on a 7-9 you drain 1 def and on a 10+ drain 2.
Rather than needing a separate entry in a movedex for, say, Growl, you could just have "Growl, Normal, Precise, Drain (Atk)" and have it pretty obvious what it does and how (assuming you know what "precise" and "Drain" mean) without needing to look something up or have it take up a lot of space on the sheet.
You still need a reference document for the the Tags... but it'll be significantly shorter and easier to memorize (or flip through), and leaves open the option to still use space to explain unique, complicated moves that maybe only Pokemon will ever have (perhaps that even balances them out a bit. A particularly strong move that takes space to explain means less room for other moves on the sheet).