Brainstorming: would making a community update to IKRPG 2012/d6 be worthwhile?

Assuming we got the blessing of those in charge, would trying to start a community project of a baseline IKRPG d6 update (essentially a revision or even version 2.0 of the rules) be a good idea? I quite like the rules, always have, but find that after all these years there are things could use changing.

For instance:

  • The Mk3 weapon stats are really nice. Eliminates Reach as a quality and offers more options while remaining standardized.
  • A section on converting Warmachine units to the RPG.
  • Maybe repondering encounter math? Base it on the number of Martial classes in the group rather than just the number of players?
  • More template variants for enemies? Such as “use this to make an enemy suitable for use by itself against a group or this to make it part of a group.”
1 Like

I’m not too familiar with Mk3 weapon stat differences to Mk2. Perhaps you could provide a side-by-side comparison of how two weapons are written up in FMF and FMF Mk3?

I think a points-based encounter math system always falls through because player characters as well as monsters and circumstances are so diverse. What makes more sense IMHO is to provide guidance to eyeball whether player characters are at a disadvantage or have the advantage rather than a point-based system, maybe according to these lines:

  • Compare vitality points.
  • Compare number of individuals taking part in a combat encounter on each side.
  • Compare the average attack stat of each side, plus 7 (the result of an average roll), with the DEF of the other (taking into account likely defensive bonuses for fortified positions).
  • Most importantly, compare the average damage roll (STR+POW+7, the average roll) of one side to the ARM of the other.

If the players draw the short straw in too many of these aspects, the fight will likely be too much for them (especially if the players’ average damage rolls cannot overcome the target character’s ARM, or the foes’ average damage rolls inflict enough damage to cripple one or two aspects with each attack. I’ve seen it with two heavy warjacks set against the players; if the player characters hadn’t had an army with them to absorb the blows, they’d have been dead meat even though the steamjacks could only move or act each round because their boilers had just been started. Even so, at the end of the fight every single NPC in the players’ army was down).

There should then be a list of “ways out” for the GM to use for different foes, to be used in case an encounter that should have been winnable turns bad because players simply had a bad day thinking tactically enough or just rolled poorly (e.g. an unexpected ally turning up, which usually feels like the cheap deus ex machina it is, or maybe creatures dragging the unconscious but alive prey to their lair, or the other side being interested in prisoners / test subjects / willing to withdraw without having been completely defeated (e.g. highwayman not wanting to risk too serious injury or too costly an engagement and rather cutting their losses than prolonging the fight)).

That being said, there are two areas where I’d not mind a change:

  • Spray weapons should deal blast damage if they miss, unless, say, they miss by 4 or more. When firing a spray attack through a cloud, targets on the other side of the cloud gain +4 to their DEF against the spray attack.
  • Fear is too trivial right now. Also, instead of basing Fear target numbers on Willpower, I’d propose mostly basing them on an observable menacing characteristic like ARM or STR(+POW), except for truly supernatural entities like ghosts.

I’d also like a set of standard setting maps, e.g. typical shrine / village temple / town temple / cathedral, small bar / large bar, ships, workshops / foundries, trains, a street in a village / town / in the slums, small hovel / large house / mansion etc., with added sections of “Things that can Break for more Fun and Excitement,” e.g. what can happen if, say, an attack roll misses in a workshop (a sword missing its mark near a shelf might mean a bag of ball bearings is knocked onto the floor, placing an AOE that forces everybody in it or ending their movement in it to move no more than 5" in their turn or be knocked down).

1 Like

Well, it’s more like the wargame, not the 5e version.

The Firebrand from KNG is: -2 Attack, 7 POW. If we updated to a Mk3 style, it’d be 1" Range, -2 Attack, 7 POW.

The Blessed Lance is: 0 Attack, 8 POW, Reach. Mk3 would be 2" Range, 0 Attack, 7 POW.

The typical sword, like the Daughters of the Flame have, is .05" range in the wargame, and would really be the baseline I think.

NOW, I like the increased variety. And the 1" and higher ranges are for Great Weapons and Lances. So its a nice point of differentiation. But it also streamlines things IMO.

I kind of think there are Warmachine Mk3 things that could be brought over to IKRPG d6 which is based more on Mk2, you know?

I don’t know. Having three melee range categories and rules entries that aren’t shorter but sometimes actually longer doesn’t exactly feel like streamlining to me…

And variety is nice, I agree, but not all variety can really be reflected in rules (e.g. some weapons have nearly the same stats but are still different, like a sword and a club, but there’s no need for a rule like “edged weapon/blunt weapon” to know that you can cut a rope with a sword but not with a club, while smashing a chain might be easier with the club), and not all variety benefits the game (e.g. making situations more difficult to adjudicate because of 1" range differences doesn’t feel like a worthwhile goal to me).

I normally play HERO and having keywords turned into actual stats can work faster in play than you’d think. Also, having an Allegient’s Serpent Strike be 2" due to reach is a little silly to me. 1" is plenty, but not possible as currently done.

Regarding streamlining: One house rule we’ve implemented is using the Mk3 version of Backstab: “While completely within the back arc of an enemy model, this model gains an additional die on its attack and damage rolls against that model.”

Normally you’d have to have been in their back arc the whole time rather than just the attack. And this lets folks do their fun stuff more often.

This is for the specific Backstab ability, not for the general backstab bonus that everybody gets who has been within the target’s back arc for their entire turn, right?

We’ve been doing it for back strikes as well.

I must say I’d be very wary of allowing all attacks from within a character’s back arc to get boosted attack and damage rolls, regardless of whether an attacker has been in their target’s back arc for their entire activation or not.

Firstly, there’s usually more NPCs as player characters, and what would stop them from always making the detours to get into character’s back arcs once distances are close enough?

Also, not requiring back strikers to have been in the target’s back arc for the entire activation would make all characters who can parry (this includes all characters with feat points), are ghostly, or are incorporeal, monstrously powerful, since they can move into their targets’ back arcs with impunity to always gain boosted attack and damage rolls.

Sorry, to clarify: it’s not that they’re boosted. Its that they simply have to attack within the back arc versus being within the back arc the entirey of their activation.

We love the d6 game. I have all the books and all the no quarters. I don’t need a revamp as much as I’d like to see them flesh out some maps and adventures. Dive into areas that have been ignored. I really enjoy the no quarters. Even if they did a quarterly one, I’d buy it. The terrain builders and pendrake adventures are sweet.

As for stats, what I like about the d6 system is how closed it is. No weapon should be above 6 pow. It ruins the economy of damage. As for figuring out how powerful to make adventures, you just need to run them to know them. Experience is the best teacher. Run the pregen adventures to see and go from there.

1 Like