Forums of the Megaverse®

In Recon, we're definitely high realism.

Most of the other games we use a sliding scale.

I'd always perceived this game as ultra-realistic, with no room for cinematics.

Yeah, Recon is supposed to be gritty, about the only cinematic thing I do is the bunch of gore and having hundreds of traers whipping around the characters when they are lucky enough not to get hit.

When I want cinematic I go to Ninjas or Heroes.

Strangely enough I play Nightbane as ultra-realistic most of the time.

Leveling tree lines... I guess it could go either way.

o={=redemption=> wrote:I was just curious; I know that it's just a game, but how realistic does everyone game Recon?

My players want it to be as realistic as possible. Which is why they have a couple of characters each.

Not as Lean, Not as Mean, but still a Marine.

I go pretty Bleeping realistic except maybe for some of the gore.
BTW I'm ex US Army Infantry and the most realistic I ever went was when I arranged a game with my buddy and some of his unit when they were on Mission patroling the ROK DMZ. For the record I had to go South to get to thier Camp. That got freaking real and intense playing a RPG using small unit tactics with a group of troops who had to use the same tactics during thier Live world patrols. We went even to the RTO calling in just as he would if things went south on the "Z"
At that point we were using the old RPG Inc. Rulebook

Marc Adkins

you people are missing a militia Meeting somewhere.

Prior to enlisting in the real thing, we thought our Recon games were realistic. I haven't played Recon since I enlisted, and if I did it would be as the mercenary setting, circa 1975 or so. I also stopped playing Twilight 2000 after I enlisted, I'm not sure why, it just felt wierd, and I know I wouldn't want to now (even though I spent a small fortune tracking down brand new first edition stuff). I try not to use the words realistic and RPG together in a sentence (crap, I just did...) but if you want that theme I would suggest finding an older RPG called Delta Force...the epitome of "one shot one kill" for everyone involved. My players were so used to playing TMNT/AtB & D&D they had gotten hero complexes and weren't prepared for a game where one shot from something so much as pistol would put you down.

gordyzx9r wrote:Prior to enlisting in the real thing, we thought our Recon games were realistic. I haven't played Recon since I enlisted, and if I did it would be as the mercenary setting, circa 1975 or so. I also stopped playing Twilight 2000 after I enlisted, I'm not sure why, it just felt wierd, and I know I wouldn't want to now (even though I spent a small fortune tracking down brand new first edition stuff). I try not to use the words realistic and RPG together in a sentence (crap, I just did...) but if you want that theme I would suggest finding an older RPG called Delta Force...the epitome of "one shot one kill" for everyone involved. My players were so used to playing TMNT/AtB & D&D they had gotten hero complexes and weren't prepared for a game where one shot from s
something so much as pistol would put you down.

Even when I was a 16-17 yo I always had an idea that a game is never going to be as realistic as the real thing. While i was enlisted I was playing both Recon and Twilight 2000. only played a few scenarios of twilight, for some reason me and the other players didn't care for the rules.
We tended to use the Recon RPG as a table top exercise. kinnda like see how the skills were supposed to work in the real world.
This evening I have a group of players that is getting tired of the fantasy genre games and is wanting to do something a little more modern world for a change. In order to break them in I am using a very nasty Recon scenario to drive home why you don't want to take a fantasy playing style and bring it to a game where guns are the weapons of choice. I have a funny feeling there is going to be about a 50-75% player mortality rate on the first encounter.
Basically a real long way of saying I agree with you.

Marc Adkins

Thoth Amon wrote:

I have a funny feeling there is going to be about a 50-75% player mortality rate on the first encounter.

Hopefully just a 50-75% chance of character mortality...

I stand corrected.
and when I ran the first scenario the Character mortality rate was around 80%
in the ambush scenario the characters destroyed two heavy weapons teams and most of their security elements, they heavily damaged by direct fire the third MG
Three players didn't show up......I think the extra firepower/teamwork would have helped.
The second scenario ( at the players request) they only had 1 KIA and one WIA to the point the character couldn't continue.

now you have to remember I was introducing a group of fantasy players to modern world RPGs. They learned from thier mistakes revamped thier next set of characters and had a whole lot of fun with it.

Marc Adkins

DevilDog0331 wrote:Uh- scratch that... I just noticed it said "ex."

Once A Marine, Always A Marine
0331

Not a problem
Did my OSUT at Ft. Benning
MOS indirect Fire Infantry read "mortars"
Stationed stateside at Ft. Lewis with the Armor Unit there
Sent to the ROK and things got a bit intresting.
Spent a few months at the "Z" with the 506th Infantry
The transfered all of us South to the 503rd infantry. when the powers that be decided that a organazational change was in order.
During that time GW1 started and about 20 months after I arrived in kimchiland I finaly left the service and started school.
Hope that helps
Marc Adkins

Hello guys,

My group often goes for the gritty- even pessimistic- portrayal of the game. Our group openly admits that there is little role playing during a Recon session. For us, this game is about the high stress situations combat men face in a confusing battlefield. There is little follow up on the psychological toll these situations take on the characters.

Recon is the game where you can create a character in 10 minutes and kill them off in 5.

There is some room for role playing situations - like the PCs find evidence that a 12 year old is planting bombs for the VC, what do they do with the kid? Kill him? Turn him over to the South Vietnamese (who will kill him)? Try to get him to stop working for the VC (Who will kill him if htey find out)? Smuggle him out of the country? Follow him and hope he leads them to the VC so they can wipe them out?

The Advanced Recon had even more room for it, but was still first and foremost a war game, not a role playing game.

Post Count 10 000 - 38

Jefffar wrote:Recon is the game where you can create a character in 10 minutes and kill them off in 5.

There is some room for role playing situations - like the PCs find evidence that a 12 year old is planting bombs for the VC, what do they do with the kid? Kill him? Turn him over to the South Vietnamese (who will kill him)? Try to get him to stop working for the VC (Who will kill him if htey find out)? Smuggle him out of the country? Follow him and hope he leads them to the VC so they can wipe them out?

The Advanced Recon had even more room for it, but was still first and foremost a war game, not a role playing game.

Post Count 10 000 - 38

I agree with you Jefffar. There is room for some role playing in Recon, yet it is mostly a skirmish game. Where the most important decisions a character will make are all related to combat strategy.

My games tend to be very realistic.

maybe it's knowing several combat veterans and playing witha couple of them.

Some of the dirty tricks that they use vastly increase their survival rate and create some rather high body counts.

what was really fun is when someone launched a phoenix style operation. No I am not talking about the false Media image of the "phoenix assasin" but running informant networks and targeting the district VC leaders and any NVA in the area. that was just interesting.

Pretty realistic. The rules as-written aren't perfect but they do a decent enough job as long as you keep track of a character's personal load as per the rules.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )