Interesting, my players have been nagging me to run a game based on something like this. I thought it was just a sign to get new players, but I'll let you know op

>>44389586
there are these 4 numbers in the bottom right corner. One of the numbers lets people know how many different posters are on a thread. Hover the mouse over a number to identify it.

People bump their own threads all the time but I cringe when they try to hide it and fail.

I recommend brazenly bumping instead of trying to hide it when bumping a new thread. Well, not now, unless a real poster comes along.

>>44390048
it doesn't count the opening post, nor is the image counter

I will brazenly bump my own thread, but I'm not sure OP counts.

>>44390096
>it doesn't count the opening post
sure it does, like here >>44389233
The thread is 0/0/1/7
and compare it to the sticky thread (since I couldn't find another example here) which is 1/0/2/1

>>44389538
Could use some character sheets

thanks for your
gripes:
>setting
What does Nato have to do here ? US shoehorning japan into letting them in, I can see that. But bringing the euros to put their flag into a new world ? Never.
Joint russia/chinese project on a capital ressource ? I don't think so.
>map
Put the gates positions on it, please
>char. classes
nvgs in the skill list instead of equipment list.
also you got classes before even a basic rule explanation (minor issue since I think no one will begin tabletop rpgs with a Gate homebrew)
>combat
Haven't played it so can't really say fr sure, but at first glance I would put melee before shooting so cqc characters have a chance, otherwise they get mowed down even if they star their turn in contact. You can make it a circle (melee-shoot-move-melee-...) until no one has actions left, so the order stay valid. Is it 100% homebrew or did you take inspiration from an existing system ?


Also, I know it's a choice, but it's WAY too combat-oriented IMO. I would play a Gate-inspired game for fantasy/modern world interactions and political dickery, not its combat system.

>>44391353
*thank you for your work

>>44391353
Thank you! I definitely need this feedback.

As far as NATO goes, it really is just the U.S leading the charge, but behind the banner of NATO cooperation. I guess that's not immediately evident, but I took inspiration from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yes, I've been working with the map, it's a bit hard to find good mapmaking software besides Inkarnate, but I figure after a few more tweaks I'll have it down pat.

Now by nvgs do you mean navigation? I'll certainly look into it, as the skill lists should probably have the lion's share of information.

As for combat I took a cue from the board game Shogun, as I want combat to be faced paced. But I agree with you about political dickery and fantasy interactions. It actually should be a main component of the game in The Field section of play, it's just not as elaborated upon as combat. I left NPC and PC interactions largely up to the storytelling ability of the GM, which may have been lazy on my part.

I do like your idea of giving more heft to melee, as they might be a bit underpowered. I tried to even it out with magical runes, but in actual gameplay it may not work as well as I thought.

>>44391572
And yeah, Chinese-Russian cooperation is a bit of a stretch, I just figured they'd be pissed if NATO was getting all the goods and try and counter it with an alliance of their own. In gameplay it served to give you the chance of playing as Spetsnaz if you wanted to instead of say, Rangers.
I tried to research if there was any eastern existing trade/military alliances like NATO, but there wasn't much that could give the West a run for their money.

>>44391572
NATO as an organization was only involved in Afghanistan because of 9/11, and was not involved in Iraq. Sans an attack on a NATO member, it doesn't really have any say in the matter.

Individual NATO countries might negotiate their way in through the US and Japan, but they would do so independently of NATO.

SEATO nations might be able to make a play, but I doubt it. SEATO doesn't have the strong Article 5 protections that NATO does.

This would probably have a place in the Homebrew General, just saying.

>>44391572
>Now by nvgs do you mean navigation?
Sorry, I meant Night Vision Google. They're listed in skills, while they're equipment (unless the soldiers have them grafted)

As for melee, it also depends on the session. If you play a long mission behind enemy lines, sparing ammo and not making noise becomes a valuable option.

On a sidenote, won't the mandatory rest for mages prevent them for roleplaying oand interacting with npcs ?

>>44391641
I would put ONU instead of NATO, so you can have everyone take part, a "centralized" high-command, and

>>44391843
Mages seem to only rest during during the down time thing, which would mean they couldn't build charisma? Which is stupid, since I like mages, but does fit into their loner/scholarly archetype

>NATO
>operating outside Europe
>>44391726
the ISAF was established by a UN Security Council resolution, and it had no NATO members like South Korea, Jordan and Singapore for example

Like I always say a UN Peacekeeping mission is a better premise, It allows you to do a lot of non combat stuff and operate independently of the Japanese

>>44389538
I've read it and it's more of a wargame than a RPG

So what do the grenades actually do? I can't find the rules for them?

>>44392732
Interesting distinction, how could I alter it to be more of an RPG? I do focus more on the combat, because the combat has the most game mechanics built in. Everything else is just exploration and discovery. But I'd be interested in your take on how to flesh out NPC encounters more.
>>44393860
I almost dropped the grenade mechanics, still haven't figured out what I want them to do ingame. Maybe a way to bypass cover. Or armor.

>>44391983
Yes Mages rest during DT, they will not be doing much social interaction nor will they bond much with the party. Magic is a powerful force, and the individuals who try and harness it pay the price.

>>44392057
UN peacekeepers are shit outside of small African countries and Bosnia. I wouldn't trust them with building a functioning water heater let alone holding together a green zone on a new planet

>>44394994
You could have Grenades as a blast weapon with range based on the user's strength?

>>44394994
Well every Peacekeeping mission has a mandate , here we can resume in "Monitor that the Japanese don't get too exited on their retribution war" and to provide assistance to local population. Everyone forgot (even the author) that the Emperor went full scorched earth and burned the crops and we still have the other kingdoms armies roaming the country side turned into full bandits

The idea that I have with a friend was to set up a peacekeeping mission operating independently of the independently of the JSDF, The contingent will be setting base on the airfield, very typical of a peacekeeping operation and will be formed principally by Australian, Vietnamese and Italian troops.

I have to go, but I'd love to hear more

Videos related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAXVbtdBu10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e_vNGXMf34

>>44395096
If we are having magical girls and OPERATORS we can have a working UN mission

>>44395096
>>44396759
could be a bunch of South Africans and Rhodesian wandering to a new conflict zone, and getting in the UN command chain due to being effective.

>>44396645
I like this, but there's no strength, so I'd probably have to work range into another stat.
>>44396759
Nice, I've pretty much ignored the JDF is this game, although they feature prominently in the source material I'm fairly certain the US would neatly brush them aside and take front and center of the operation. But hell, they player can be any nationality of either world they desire.
What made you chose Australian, Italian and Vietnamese? I wonder if they work well together.
The U.N as the dominant force does make sense, but I really am enamored with the idea of different interests competing in the new world. To that end I figured NATO and another organization including Russia and China. But the U.N is hardly homogeneous irl.

>>44397552
See, that can make a great mechanic though! While international diplomacy would ensure the mission was UN lead, all the big players would still have their own interests and have varying resistance to said diplomatic pressure in such a mission (Some Burmese peacekeepers would be very strictly bound to the mandates for example, whereas the US/Japanses/Chinese/Russian presence to the mission might just disregard the other parties in favor of their interests). It allows a broad potential mishmash while still keeping existing major factions almost a separate entity ie: the US and Japan can deploy their forces independently of the UN coalition as they have legal methods for moving forces in Japan for the purposes of self defense anyway. Helps highlight wild west feeling of the boots on the ground making up the rules contrasted with international and humanitarian concerns trying to have a say on things too.

>>44397552
You could have multiple factions using the gate world as sort of a proxy war. The UN could be there for genuine reasons while other factions act like they are helping the UN while secretly that everybody says that they are helping while they accomplish their own goals, and if you want more then just go the Metal Gear route and throw in PMCs acting as "security for humanitarian aid". That way you could have the US, Japan and Russia all there for their own reasons and aiding the UN as a cover for their troops being there.

>>44397759
>>44397552
It also makes a potential mechanic for native forces to actually threaten some modern forces without too much contrivance as certain peace keepering contingents, depending on nationality, can be very underequiped, incompetent/cowardly, and have little cohesion or communication with the main force. Makes an interesting scenario when a Burmese (I use them as they make a large portion of current UN forces and are literally the bottom of the bucket) go off the reservation to loot/faff about and get caught with their pants down, pun intended.

>>44397769
I forgot to add, but the "everybody has their own agenda" point could also open the way for justifying the use of locals, such as wizards, magical girls and local guides. Afterall, why bring in Alex the Operator from America when you could just recruit a magical girl for a few bags of sweets.

Also, one thing that could be considered is air support. I find it hard to believe that any modern country would go into an unknown area full of possible hostiles without at least helicopters. adding in air support could range from backpack carried RC planes with cameras on them for recon and spotting all the way to calling strike aircraft. This way the players have more diverse ways of dealing with a problem.

If players have to clear a village they could choose between using a drone to recon the area before moving in. They could call in a gunship to give them fire support while they push in. Or they could just decide that the village is too much hassle and call in an air strike.

>>44397769
>>44397804
The U.N force concept is growing on me, I think I'll go ahead and switch out NATO with the U.N and their many, many constituents, and their many, many agendas.
>>44397921
And I've actually included air support in the form of Command Points that can be cashed in ingame. Specifically Predator drones, but I intend to add AC 130's, F-35's, Apache Helicopters, and F-22's. Or maybe I'll switch out F-22's with F-16's. Anyways you call them in via CP.

>>44397804
Oh good lord, the Burmese make up the majority of the current UN makeup? I can only imagine how they'd handle multiple elf tribes who hate each other

>>44398788
I'm no expert, and I can't source this, so grain of salt and all that, but many nations who can barely afford their own military send their forces to the UN largely to equip and train them. While forces joining the UN are supposed to have a minimal level of professionalism and training, as well as being properly outfitted (like having uniforms, boots, or functioning weapons), the amount of nations willing to contribute is almost nil outside of specific interests (Afghanistan was a UN mission, even though it was entirely a America/Nato undertaking/concern for example) and they take what they can get. They still need to meet the minimum though, so that soldier from whereveristan with a sks and runners will be equipped and trained by the UN and its backers to a minimal standard. So in short alot of peacekeeping is a soldiers-for-outfitting-them deal. The UN gets boots on the ground and absolute crap armies like Burma get boots period. While this isn't always the case it is a significant factor in the make-up of UN forces, and is why besides ridiculous rules of engagement UN forces often perform poorly/run away/ prostitute children etc. Usually the good UN forces are those established for a specific purpose by nations with an active interest in specific UN missions (Like the African Union's successes for example) as compared to untrained conscripts who just are there for the sake of it.

>>44399101
I imagine the gate(s) would represent a specific interest and have some damn fine forces assigned to any UN mission, but there would be the riffraf too, especially if they wanted to assemble the force in any decent time frame with the forces that are available now. That and many of the most powerful nations who have direct access to the gates (Japan/America/China) wouldn't so much contribute to the UN mission as opposed to sending their own armies in their own capacity (The gates did pop up on their territory, its their right to regulate their 'borders' after all).

>>44399101
That's actually really cool. It's like an intern program. Why train your army of riff raff when the UN will do it for you

>>44398738
If you are planning to add in more air support then I recommend adding the option for the A-10 and I also suggest doing one of two things:

Option one is to add in stats for Russian equivalents to US aircraft like the MI-24 Hind, SU-25 and the SU-27 derivatives. Meanwhile, aircraft that don't have international equivalents and are used by only a limited number of countries (such as the AC-130) could be used as "unique units" for nations (A possible example could be that the US is able to field the AC-130, Russia could field TU-95s and Britain could field their version of the Eurofighter Typhoon)

Option 2 is simpler, and air support could just be dictated by the aircraft type (so the F-15 and SU-27 would be "multirole aircraft" while the A-10 and SU-25 would be "ground attack aircraft" and the F-22 and PAK-FA would be "advanced fighter aircraft".

>>44399359
Had to google the A 10 and the F 15, talk about bitchin' aircraft. The "tank buster" would be really effective against fantasy stegosauruses and other fantastical creatures. Imagine an American 10 flying over a charging army of war elephants. Even if the creatures were equipped with rune armor it'd be a hell of a show.