[RPG]: In Harm's Way:Wild Blue, reviewed by Skyrock (2/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13757.phtml

Stefan Sumser's Summary:

An average RPG about contemporary mercs, but with an awesome air combat subsystem and some smaller neat bits.

Go to the full review for more information.

[flyingmice]

Thank you Skyrock! An excellent review. Much obliged!

-clash

[flyingmice]

Stefan? Why did you give the same review a 5 here and a 6 on RPGsite?

-clash

[Skyrock]

It is a matter of the way how the final score is determined.
On theRPGsite, the review system has a single score from 1-10, and how you decide the final value ist left open to you as reviewer.
On RPG.net, you are forced to give Style and Substance the same weight, from 1-5.
I'm generally more interested in the substance and the crunch and don't care a lot about optics, gloss and fluff, so I give substance way more weight than style when I have free reign on the way how the final value is determined. Here, you don't have this freedom, you have to go the 50-50 route.


BTW, I was actually pondering whether I should rate this 2/4 instead of 2/3 or not. However, on such a coarse-grained scale 4 of 5 is already quite outstanding, and after some thinking it didn't seem justified to me. The crunch is certainly above-average, and the air combat system is pure awesome, but the presentation and the more hair-raising quirks don't make it look like it's just one tick away from the best possible rating.

I should also (as on theRPGsite) point out that I take only RAW into account when I evaluate a game. It's certainly a plus if issues are easy to fix, but at the end of the day it are the rules as written that set the score. (I ignore of course unintentional and clear mistakes à "prices of water flasks and Leopard IIIs are accidentally switched", but that wasn't a matter in this case.)
If (like some reviewers) I'd look at "the game how I'd house-rule it" rather than "the game how it is by the book", a 2/4 score would be a close call, but should be justified.

[flyingmice]

Originally Posted by Skyrock

It is a matter of the way how the final score is determined.
On theRPGsite, the review system has a single score from 1-10, and how you decide the final value ist left open to you as reviewer.

OK! Thanks! I didn't know that.

-clash

[ragnarok]

Sounds like something I might like to buy, just a few Questions about the dogfight rules:

Would the Dogfightsystem run reasonable well, with more than two fighters (or at least with a few one-on-one fights next to each other)? It seems pretty demanding for a GM to handle.

1.) Scaling: Maneuvers work with 1.000 metre hops, while the gunnery ranges use 100 metre steps. The only solutions with a grid map are to use a huge map, to alter the gunnery ranges or to use a small trick (micro- and macro maps, as well as Pirates!-style centre shifting worked reasonably well when I tested the system in solo-play).

What is "Pirates!-style centre shifting" ?!

2.) Maneuvers: There are just damn many of them, and the summary on the cheat-sheet isn’t always clear on their effect. You just either have to put a good dose of work into learning the details, or you have to accept frequent consultation of the complete maneuver descriptions. This flaw will probably diminish over the course of some sessions, but it’s here.

Would the System still work if I cut the maneuver-list in half, introducing some maneuvers over time, or are all maneuvers needed for it to work?

[Skyrock]

Originally Posted by ragnarok

Would the Dogfightsystem run reasonable well, with more than two fighters (or at least with a few one-on-one fights next to each other)? It seems pretty demanding for a GM to handle.

I can't make a definitive answer on this one as it is only a capsule review and as I only tested the system in solo-play, but with this data as base, I'd think it should run reasonable well if you don't think too hard about anticipating the individual player. Just follow your first or second idea on this individual dogfight, jot down the maneuver(s) for each plane, watch out that your success chance remains reasonable well, follow through the movements in the resolution phase, and maybe make a couple of d% rolls if there's a firing solution.

In regards of workload, I'd compare it with CP2020 combat, with maneuver choice and maneuver checks in lieu of the CP2020 stun/death saves and wound tracking.


It might only be troublesome if you want your players to face aces that fight as such and keep fighting on when their planes are damaged, rather than your generic unmotivated third world pilots. But then again, this is always a problem in highly tactical systems - as long as there are multiple opponents to manage while the players only have one character each, the GM simply can't put as much effort into has baddies as the players without massively hurting the play flow.

Originally Posted by ragnarok

What is "Pirates!-style centre shifting" ?!

Have you ever played the computer game "Sid Meyers Pirates!" from the early 90s? If not, it's tough to explain.

The ship combat subsystem there ran in real-time, with each side trying to force the other to cross the T with it, or touching the enemy ship to start the boarding (not unlike dogfighting).
It was handled on a generic, featureless sea map, and whenever one ship met the border of the map, or both where closing in on one border, the centre of the map shifted so that both ships where once again on the map, more or less near the new centre.

Originally Posted by ragnarok

Would the System still work if I cut the maneuver-list in half, introducing some maneuvers over time, or are all maneuvers needed for it to work?

There are certainly some more esoteric maneuvers than others, and at least on the balancing frontier there shouldn't be a problem if _both_ parties lack the same maneuvers.

However, I lack the actual play experience to make a definitive suggestion, and I'm not sure if the lack of some maneuvers could force someone into a dead-end without a way to escape. I'll leave this question at the capable hands of Clash, who might also be able to make suggestions about which maneuvers might be safely salvaged for starters.

[ragnarok]

If it's comparable to CP2020s "FNFF!" it should run smoth enough for me.

Oh, that Pirates (I thought of something along the lines of "...of the Spanish Main"). Now it makes sense!

Thanks!

[flyingmice]

Originally Posted by ragnarok

Sounds like something I might like to buy, just a few Questions about the dogfight rules:

Would the Dogfightsystem run reasonable well, with more than two fighters (or at least with a few one-on-one fights next to each other)? It seems pretty demanding for a GM to handle.

Hi Ragnarok:

I've run dogfights of 24 enemies to 6 PCs with no problems. It's not all that demanding, really.

What is "Pirates!-style centre shifting" ?!

I think Skyrock has answered that well enough.

Would the System still work if I cut the maneuver-list in half, introducing some maneuvers over time, or are all maneuvers needed for it to work?

It would work fine with less maneuvers, but I'm curious - why would you want to do that other than training? To cut down on maneuvers cuts down on options for the PCs. In training, it makes sense - Limit options so the PCs can learn how to do maneuvers, and also what they are capable of. In combat, you may be signing their death warrants. I the game, the PCs have significant advantages over their likely opponents, which are not all apparent on perusing the game. It's the interaction of several different mechanics like Traits and Edges along with solid training which allows PCs to attempt wild-ass stunts, and the enemy - if they attempt to follow - will be at a disadvantage. First world pilots are just *better* than third world pilots, and the game reflects this.

-clash

[ragnarok]

Originally Posted by flyingmice

It would work fine with less maneuvers, but I'm curious - why would you want to do that other than training?

Mostly no reason, other than training. Training for my players (and me), not necessarry their PCs

It sounded like it might get a little complicated for my casual gamers and a little time to get used to.

BTW: I just noticed that there are other versions of "In Harms Way". Do the dogfights of WW1 or WW2 have the same problems Skyrock mentioned? The 1000 meter Maneuvers to the 100metres Gunnery ranges and perhaps not as much maneuvers (the Machines were quite diffrent back than, and not as fast, thus, perhaps...).

@Skyrock: Good Review BTW.