We Want Your Mission Ideas

[CaptainPatch]

Will there be a chance that the ripples of this single incident, may escalate tensions between Ranger Center and "Woodland Hillock ville", such that Ranger Center will send out a bigger party to crush the militia that dare injure Desert Rangers. [Well, the adventure party isn't an independent band, but is part of a larger sovereign entity that is Ranger Center; thus an incident like this is likely to escalate into an 'international incident' since there is no higher authority to arbitrate]

Let's say if the wooded area is found to be rich in resources for sustaining life and economic activities, will Ranger HQ use that incident as a pretext for armed intervention (conquest)?

From what I have gathered from what inXile has put out so far, this expedition is much like Columbus' first voyage: The authorities "back home" have no info, no presence, and no idea how things stand in the area of play. If the party gets wiped out, how would Ranger Center have ANY idea of what happened to the party? Did the Rangers go rogue? (A possibility that varies according to how the player decides his party will be oriented.) Were they wiped out by a pack of mutant beasties? Died in an ambush by raiders? Killed in a landslide? Etc. Ranger Center wouldn't have Clue One until the _second_ party was sent forth -- provided that second party just happens across some evidence of the first party's passing.

IF inXile went with my suggestion of having a functional munitions plant, it would be VERY likely that Ranger Center would want to establish good relations with the local community. ("The Ambassador is on his way!")

What Ranger Center's agenda is varies according to who you talk to. Some players see RC as being at the beginning of imperialistic empire-building. Others see RC as being interested in simply helping along the return of the Rule of Law. Some even think that RC would be interested in reestablishing the USA. Each angle would have its own most likely approach when it comes to deciding how RC will follow up on the party's actions. Personally, I do NOT see RC as being the kind of political entity that would manufacture an excuse for military "retaliation", just to expand its domain and resources. I'm more of a Rule of Law advocate.

[Mandemon]

Poisoned Slavers

Act I: Meeting the Slavers

Party approaches settlement, which turns out to slaver settlement. However, it's people are "civilized", where even slaves have certain rights. For example, owners are not allowed to sexually abuse their slaves, owners must take good care of their slaves, etc. etc.


Town is having a trouble: Someone is poisoning their only well and they don't have anything to purify the water in large enough quantities to help both slavers and slaves and thus, slaves have been forced to survive with minimal water. Party can accept job from Mayor to investigate the source up in the hills.

Once player reaches the source of the water (a pool in the hills), there are few outcomes:

Party arrives at the correct time and catches the culprits(8-12) in the act. With high enough sneak skill party can go unnoticed.

Party arrives at the pool. PC with high enough perception or skill notices trails. With high enough stats, s/he can determine that culprits visit every 3 days and how long it's been since last time.

If player catches the culprits in the act, player can choose whenever to face them right away. This leads to firefight that ends in death of either group. Success here leads to end of the quest line and leads to mayor rewarding the party. Settlement survives.

However, if player decides to let them leave and spends time creating an ambush, several new paths open.

Player can catch the culprits next time with well planned ambush. This will allow party to talk to the group. Talking with the group reveals that they are survivors from several settlements that were attacked by the slavers from the town. They have gotten their hands on large amount of poison and have decided to enact a revenge on the slavers, by slowly killing them.

From here, party needs to decide how to move from here:

Walk away and let them carry out their revenge. Slaves will suffer and eventually settlement will be abandoned, but groups sense of justice is fulfilled. Group can them move in to the settlement.

Convince group that they are hurting the innocent slaves and that what they are doing is not justice. If player can convince them (either trough skill check or arguments), group leaves.

Just kill them.

Strike a deal with them: Party can has access to the town, so they can strike from inside. With high enough speech skill, party can convince survivors to wait until the night, when party will open the gates and allow them inside.


Act II: Dealing with the Slavers

If party killed the survivors after talking to them, player can report to mayor.

If party convinced them to leave, mayor complains that the group might attack again and they need to place sentries at the source. He will give only half of the reward. Source of the well becomes guarded area.

However, if party decided to side with the survivors, he can either just kill all slavers. Survivors move in to the settlement and start building new society without slavery, however one with very strict and harsh laws due to their sense of "justice".

Party can also betray survivors. Party can go and talk to mayor and tell about plan to open the doors. Mayor and several ring leaders will devise a plan to ambush survivors. Party can accept the job or decide to leave it at there. Leaving the mess behind now leads to half-reward.

If party joins the slavers, they will open the door. Not participating in the following firefight (survivors aren't hostile since they think rangers are on their side, as well as slavers), will lead to both sides nearly wiping each other out, but slavers winning in the end. This will lead to remaining survivors becoming bitter slaves and party gaining accepted reward. Joining the firefight and saving lives of the slavers leads to increased reward.

Player can also say they will join the slavers, set up ambush and then betray slavers. This will lead to same scenario as player having joined with survivors originally.

Betraying survivors and then betraying slavers leads to slaves running the settlement. At first it will appear that they are trying to build democratic system but later visit reveal that same old slave system has returned.

In any case, if survivors take control of the town, it will become place of law and order, with little regard of person.

If slaver maintain control, they will adopt "No Survivors" policy, unless player lies about the source of the poisoning.

If both survivors and slavers are dead, slaves will try to build new society but eventually return to old model, albeit without "No Survivors" policy.

[simplycorrect]

The Law

The Rangers come upon a tough old-west style frontier town. The residents are all well-armed with shotguns and handguns. The local Sheriff effectively keeps the town safe with his two large revolvers.

One of the Rangers is (falsely) accused of a murder. The Rangers must decide if they will comply with the law or use force to escape. If they escape, they are forever hunted by this faction, who will attempt to bring them to justice. (Unless they are wiped out completely) If they comply, the one ranger is separated from the group and placed in jail as they prepare for a trial.

The remaining Rangers must then gather evidence and act as advocates for the accused. They have the option to interview, frame, bribe or coerce witnesses, gather or manufacture articles of physical evidence or even crack the case themselves. There will be shadowy types ambushing the Rangers and attempting to stop them.

Another shadowy group appears and helps the party, identifying their patron as someone who wants to become the next sheriff. the party can choose to work for this person and accept his help, or refuse.

It may be discovered that the Sheriff committed the murder and needed a stranger to take the blame. The law applies equally to all in this town and he would be hanged if found out. Further investigation reveals the man he killed violated his daughter. If they talk to the daughter, they find out the two were actually in love.

At the trial, the Rangers can prove their innocence and reveal as much or as little as they want, frame someone else or turn the Sheriff in and see him hanged. They can persuade the court to exile the Sheriff and have him join the party as an NPC.

The exiled Sheriff, doomed to be separated from his family and cast from his position as a lawman now fights with a suicidal rage-often disregarding wounds and neglecting to tend to them. Dual wielding revolvers, the Sheriff can get many shots off quickly and is tough as nails. He detests criminals and evildoers the most, and will not tolerate their presence, no matter what the Rangers say.

Fully solving the murder and seeing justice done gains the Rangers the admiration of the town. They gain many quality volunteers who wish to train at Ranger HQ. If the party fails to prove their innocence, the accused Ranger will be found guilty and the entire party will be 'exiled' and banned from the town forever.

There are many candidates for a new Sheriff, including the one who attempting to purchase the partys help while they were in need. This person is of course a villain and if he becomes Sheriff bad things happen to the town...

[Hiver]

Seven Samurai - mission setup

Found in early game:

You find an old western town just before it is going to be hit by an overwhelming force of raiders or members of some reasonably advanced faction.

Their previous "sheriff" or defender was just killed a day or two before.
People are desperate for your help. most of them will be killed or taken into slavery and/or for medical experiments.

Your choices:

If you choose to fight for them youre in for the toughest fight in that opening stage of the game.
A fight that requires and uses any skills the rangers and NPC allies have.

- It is difficult but possible to convince some of the inhabitants to join in and fight.

- setting up traps, explosive or otherwise is a great benefit - if you can do it.
- tactical decisions on where to put mines, claymores, bigger or smaller holes with spikes in them, (do you have any?)
- do you booby trap some of the obvious covers assailants might use (which means your team cannot use them)
- teaching some of the residents how to fight and use weapons.
- tactical decisions of where to position the residents willing to help.
- tactical decisions you make about where to position barricades
- do you have a sharpshooter or not
- sneaking skill ranger or NPC ally can be used for various types of ambushes
- is fire available? will you burn down the town or most of it if it will help?

- Hostage situation with one assailant shielding behind one of the residents. A child or a wife of/or a nice NPC that helped you previously? Consequences for each outcome based on your choices and whether youre skilled enough to pull it off.
Not every choice means automatic success, y know? But maybe the intention still counts in some choices even if things end up badly. In other it doesnt count and a failure to execute ends in hostage death that you get the blame for.

- There is a traitor among the residents. Discover his reasons for betraying you and the rest or just hang him high at once?
Can you discover him or her before he rats out your plans to the attackers? What if its just a girl that fell in love with one of the attackers and he actually isnt evil at all? (he can possibly survive the attack, being rendered unconscious)

- what if she was only tricked, being young and all, he is actually some evil motherfucker and he takes her as a hostage?
There is her parents or family to think about too.
- Do you shoot her in a leg so she falls down and then try to kill the bastard?
- do you kill them both?
- can your sharpshooter take a shot?
- can you distract the hostage taker while a ranger or an NPC ally sneaks behind and tries to take him out?



High Noon version:

possibly happening in another settlement

Its basically two power groups fighting for the influence over the town.
Only a few individuals who opposed the attackers group, will be hurt if they win or you dont do anything and just leave.

You meet the sheriff - its a lady sheriff. She helps you in some situation when you meet her and begs for your help. Or you save her from an attack in a small encounter and then she asks you for your help.
She gets killed soon after that from an ambush that you are not present in - you just find her dead a day later.
And then its all up to you.

Residents shun you, the conflict wont affect them seriously since there is no taking into slavery or other bad stuff in the plot. They are willing to bend their heads and let the few who opposed the other faction or group to be killed.
Nobody is willing to risk their lives or lives of their family in the conflict that wont change their life much.

- A personal morality induced choice.

- As difficult and as demanding fight as the one described in "Seven samurai" mission above, but you must do it on your own.

- It starts right when the clock strikes high noon of course. And always plays at high noon.

- If you manage to win a fight (regardless of the costs) the only reward is that your shunned from the city. (nobody wants to talk to you, all shops close before you can reach them, all houses close before you can reach them)
- i.e. The Vault Dweller ending.
- there is no positive reputation rewards either. At all.

- i guess you can choose to kill the entire city - and you would need to kill every last single one resident, children and all - to avoid reputation consequences that would be very significant. No loot to take afterwards either from the residents except some cheep and irrelevant trinkets or a few dollars.

Basically there is no reward whatsoever except ... doing the right thing. Except even that will not be recognized by the game at all. Its just your personal knowledge that you did it, or not - as a player.

What do you do?

[Hasenklein]

From what I have gathered from what inXile has put out so far, this expedition is much like Columbus' first voyage: The authorities "back home" have no info, no presence, and no idea how things stand in the area of play. If the party gets wiped out, how would Ranger Center have ANY idea of what happened to the party? Did the Rangers go rogue? (A possibility that varies according to how the player decides his party will be oriented.) Were they wiped out by a pack of mutant beasties? Died in an ambush by raiders? Killed in a landslide? Etc. Ranger Center wouldn't have Clue One until the _second_ party was sent forth -- provided that second party just happens across some evidence of the first party's passing.

IF inXile went with my suggestion of having a functional munitions plant, it would be VERY likely that Ranger Center would want to establish good relations with the local community. ("The Ambassador is on his way!")

What Ranger Center's agenda is varies according to who you talk to. Some players see RC as being at the beginning of imperialistic empire-building. Others see RC as being interested in simply helping along the return of the Rule of Law. Some even think that RC would be interested in reestablishing the USA. Each angle would have its own most likely approach when it comes to deciding how RC will follow up on the party's actions. Personally, I do NOT see RC as being the kind of political entity that would manufacture an excuse for military "retaliation", just to expand its domain and resources. I'm more of a Rule of Law advocate.

I like your concept of "Columbus' first voyage", the lack of possibilities to communicate, and consequently the lack of information, which, to me, is a problem for all communities.

To me, the question is what options RC has if a new power center emerges. That may lead to a dilemma that in our real world is in part examplified by the conflict between Israel and Iran. Let's assume that Iran is interested in developing nuclear power for civil purposes only. Whatever kind guarantees Iran may give, the point is that Israel can never achieve certainty about Iran's true purposes. Rather, they depend on information that can be gathered which will depend on direct observation of whatever kind. Israel may trust Iran, but if it does, it runs into the risk of being cheated and eventually destroyed.

RC may face a similar dilemma: if RC learns that a different community is about to gather the power or means to pose a possible threat to the RC's conditions of survival and consequently is about to become a possible strategical threat, what will they do? What if the information the assessment is based on is false? What if the information is possibly false, is recognized as possibly false, but if there's not enough time to evaluate the information and to remain in control of the situation? Will they destroy these means? Or will they do nothing, hoping or believing that everything is fine? And if they do so, can they be certain that the peacefull situation will continue forever? Would the population of RC believe that their authorities act responsible with regards to their security interests? What if the decision was kept in secret, and if the population learns that their lifes were put to risk?

[derekticon]

To me, the question is what options RC has if a new power center emerges.

RC may face a similar dilemma: if RC learns that a different community is about to gather the power or means to pose a possible threat to the RC's conditions of survival and consequently is about to become a possible strategical threat, what will they do? ... And if they do so, can they be certain that the peacefull situation will continue forever? Would the population of RC believe that their authorities act responsible with regards to their security interests?

I think this question hits the nail on the head for the post-apocalyptic context. The world was baptised by nuclear conflagration, and was re-born again. The human society (in this regard, the USA) was given a clean slate to reconstruct society. The pockets of communities that survived, will they revert to habits and instincts of the pre-apocalyptic world in the way they organize society and handle relations with other societies? Will this process lead to another apocalypse?

That is why I thought Wasteland at the macro-level is about the reconstruction of human society, and how the communities that emerge re-create the society that works for them. In this process, they're likely to encounter resistance to their idealised model. In that situation, how will they use force (violence) and diplomacy (negotiations) to attain their aim?

The game may explore some of the classic themes of political science - one of which is the problem of security and its associated conundrums (by making myself stronger in order to defend myself, my stronger power threatens those around me and they thus seek to upgrade their defences - leading to an arm race etc; in order to ensure that the other side does not threaten me, I carry out a pre-emptive strike etc). Security matters are of top priority to Survivor communities and societies at the early phases of their development; while having to cope with the harsh natural environment, they'll also need to cope with other competing communities.

My assumption is that Ranger Center is one of such survivor communities that had acquired 'state-like' characteristics (functional society, governance, bureaucratic institutions, armed militia, economic production) and there could be others that are similar. There could also be some minor settlements that are struggling just to get by.

Thus, what happen if Ranger Center encounters other communities of similar stature and could challenge their influence? Or what if there are minor settlements that do not wish to be subjected to the influence of Ranger Center (i.e. Communist Russians [perhaps KGB agents that were detained] that were persecuted and incarcerated by the US government before the bombs fell)

In terms of campaign or mission design, that's one of the key questions that I have in mind - keeping to the theme of a post-apocalyptic simulation.

The game mechanics (text-based interaction), there's a greater capacity for diplomacy (negotiations) rather than combat to attain mission objectives (realism) - especially if the crisis has to do with relationships between belligerents; each tactical objective ought to translate into a 'strategic effect' that will alter the shape of the entire game world (e.g. balance of power between communities, the promotion of one ideology over the other etc.)

At the end of the day, the player must experience the power of being able to change and shape the world with his tactical actions.

[CaptainPatch]

To me, the question is what options RC has if a new power center emerges.

This is a VERY interesting line of speculation. The "answer" depends very much on what kind of political entity Ranger Center is.

If RC is imperialistic, planning to build an empire, then any large, coordinated power base they encounter is a potential competitor which needs to be undermined, weakened, or destroyed lest it become too powerful for RC to overcome and dominate.

If RC is interested in reestablishing the USA, how would it react to something like the Enclave which claims direct descendancy from the USA government, but behaves like Nazi Germany? Or a weakened, ineffectual "USA" that has gone overboard on democracy and is hampered by the political in-fighting of umpteen political parties? (Sort of like the "banana Republics" that Americans deride today.)

If RC is primarily interested in the restoration of the Rule of Law, if it encounters a large, well-managed area that clearly has a well-established and enforced body of Laws, it _should_ throw its support that way, subordinating itself to that larger polity. But what if that emerging nation has legalized Slavery? "Separate but equal" discrimination? Or any number of other questionable policies? Or a warlord that has successfully established an expansive feudal system?

Go along with, get out of the way, or go to war: The party will be the "tip of the spear" when encountering these groups. Their actions _will_ affect how RC will have to relate to any substantial political areas they encounter. It would help immensely if the party already knew what RC's goals are before taking irreversible actions. ["What's that, RC? You want to ally with these people? It would have been nice to know that before we blew up their Armory!"]

[TiLT]

Isn't this getting just a little bit off-topic now?

[Mandemon]

Yup. Posting a thread in lore section for this.

EDIT

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2406

Here we go.

[McTeddy]

Since I'm fairly new to the wasteland series, I'll stick to something fairly generic.

There was once a small town where the people were forced to farm for survival. As time passed they were able to resurrect some irrigation equipment and later even harvesting robots. The town soon grew into a hub of economic hug because they had plenty of food to trade and the villagers could live happy and comfortably.

As the players arrive in town, the villager are up in arms because some thief stole a computer chip that ran the system. The robots no longer gather the crops, the fields need to be manually watered. Their lively hood has been stolen by a stranger came in, took the chip, and took off to the east before anyone could figure out what happened. As rangers, you are asked to track him down and retrieve the chip.

The players obviously do so and track up with the man. Rather than fighting back he desperately explains his situation.
His daughter has suffered from extreme radiation poisoning... the treatment is far higher than even the players could ever afford. Desperate for money, he made a deal with a shady organization to bring in this chip in exchange for enough money for the treatment.

He argues that he isn't hurting anyone. That village can survive without the automated systems, his daughter won't survive another month without the treatment. He won't give you the chip, but he won't fight back either.

You can either kill him in cold blood or let him walk away.

Retrieving the chip with cause the town to worship you as a hero. Discounts in all the stores, friendly people, a free room at the hotel.

Letting him only gives you the satisfaction of saving the young girls life. The villagers are now forced to work their fields and harvest their crops to survive. They mumble about your worthless tracking skills whenever you come into town. But they all survive, they just lose their comfortable lifestyle.

And if you really want to screw with the players sense of right and wrong... allow them to meet the stranger in the future. He's sitting in a bar enjoying his untold wealth and telling stories about how the rangers are "fools". The chip is long gone and the villagers lost their happy life... and it turns out there was no good reason for it.

[CaptainPatch]

He won't give you the chip, but he won't fight back either.

You can either kill him in cold blood or let him walk away.

4-7 big, muscular military types can't simply hold him down and take the chip from him?

If she's that bad off that even a trip to the doctor is out of the entire party's price range, the chip buyer is jiving a desperate man and plans to take the chip from him when he shows up with it. Sadly, the truth is that she is beyond saving and he needs to accept that fact rather than single-handedly ruining the entire economy of a reviving community.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

[Gillsing]

If you bring her on a stretcher, that's two party members that will not be instantly available for any... difficult situation that may pop up, making the party more vulnerable to ambush or whatever.

This is a good idea for transporting any unconscious character, whether they're in the party or not. But if it isn't in general gameplay, I wouldn't want to see it applied to one specific quest like this.

The outcome will resolve around: What did the party do with the bodies of the actual kidnappers? Left lying, easy fodder for the scavengers? Or "given a Christian burial"?

Unless there's always the option to bury the dead, I don't think it would be good gameplay to give that option this one time, for apparently no reason at the time when the option is given.

If the latter, the local equivalent of the Medical Examiner will find some of Pat's jewelry hidden in the clothing of one of the kidnapper's body when the body was exhumed.

Unless the rangers have had a reason to not loot their fallen enemies before, I don't see why they wouldn't already have done so in this case. And if the jewellery is so hard to find that the rangers weren't even given a chance to loot it, why would anyone else find it? Well, maybe if it was hidden inside the body for the medical examiner to find? "I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass for two years." (Or "days", in case of the dead kidnapper.) Or perhaps the medical examiner has a metal detector? And the rangers will never, ever get one. Ever. Because that would be cheating.

I figure that the Reagan hovertanks probably used some kind of nuclear engine, so fuel is less of an issue, but they're only going to have so many shells.

I'm thinking that a hovertank would probably be equipped with weapons that lack significant recoil. And I imagine that anything that fires shells would be likely to have a lot of recoil. With a nuclear engine it seems more suitable for the tank to be equipped with a laser cannon. But who knows?


Personally I don't like moral dilemmas for their own sake, I just want them to come into play when a situation calls for them. But I also understand and accept that grey morality is what is specifically asked for in this thread, so here goes:


Forced Labour

The rangers are looking for two persons, last seen heading in the direction of Fort Disco (or whatever).
This stalwart and productive settlement thrives in the wasteland, and also functions as a popular trading hub. The leaders of the settlement are largely viewed as tough but fair, and their solution to the local raider problem has been to capture a large amount of raiders and use them as forced labour. After arriving, the rangers should eventually notice that the two people they're looking for have been captured and added to the labour force as well. But as far as the rangers know, these people are not supposed to be raiders. What gives?

Investigating the issue will reveal that the two people claim to not be raiders, but they were still disarmed and captured by a patrol. If the rangers insist that the two must be released, a successful use of the Bureaucracy skill will make it happen, and a very high success (or a second roll) would get the two persons compensated for the work they have done so far. But at the very least they will get all their equipment back, with apologies from whoever is in charge.

Depending on why the rangers were looking for these two persons, they might have already gotten information that they wanted, or might now be able to get that information, or escort the persons to safety, or even recruit them to the party. Or all of the above.

And that could be the end of it. But nosy rangers will find out that it is highly likely that a significant minority of prisoners are not raiders or criminals of any sort, and that armed travellers run a risk of being captured without any kind of justification. Sometimes prisoners are recognised by visitors, so if there are credible witnesses that can testify to a prisoner's innocence, they are usually released. (The rangers might find out about all of this before they manage to release their two 'persons of interest'. It could give them a clue as to how to proceed before resorting to force.)

Further investigations will reveal that this way of handling 'raiders' is fully backed by the leaders, so it's not a matter of an overzealous patrol being responsible. They have orders to disarm and capture all armed travellers who seem suspicious, but only if they can manage it with little risk to themselves.

So now there's an opportunity for the rangers to exercise their morals. Will they demand that the patrols stop capturing travellers? Will they demand that the prisoners are tried by impartial judges, and released if there is no evidence of criminal behaviour? Who would these judges be? The rangers certainly don't have the time to personally investigate and interview all those prisoners. But if they lack the Bureaucracy skill, this would be their best chance to at least release the two persons they came for. Depending on how powerful the rangers are at the time, the leaders may be more or less inclined to comply with any demands. But it seems likely that the rangers will be considered enough of a threat that the leaders will make at least feeble attempts to comply with the above demands. (I'm assuming that the rangers will be just as powerful as in the first game, where they could readily kill an entire town. If that's not the case, they may have to return later with heavier armours, or get the backing from powerful people.)

If the rangers demand that every prisoner is released, the leaders would be more inclined to take a chance and refuse, and most likely order the rangers to leave the settlement. But if the rangers are wearing sci-fi armours, the leaders would have no choice but to comply. However, if the rangers also demand that the prisoners are rearmed/re-equipped and/or compensated for all their work, the leaders must refuse, as that would not only ruin the settlement, but also surround it with armed raiders, eager for revenge. The most that the leaders would agree to would be to release a few prisoners at a time, with minimal supplies, and an armed escort to another settlement. This would require a successful Confidence check from the rangers, as well as a position of significant bargaining power. Depending on the surrounding settlements, perhaps the rangers could make some kind of deal that makes the whole thing seem a lot more palatable to the leaders? In that case the rangers might not need to power armours after all.

Once the rangers leave after having made demands, the leaders will attempt to undermine the rangers in ways that would be hard to trace back to the source. They might arrange for traps and hire snipers, and try to attract dangerous attention to the rangers. Some of the prisoners could even be convinced to take covert action against the rangers, either in exchange for freedom and money, or in exchange for the freedom of a loved one.

If a significant number of actual raiders are released, crime will increase, and rangers will be blamed. Prices would also be raised in the settlement, blamed on the reduced productivity due to the rangers' demands. That alone might make other traders peeved. Perhaps some raiders might feel some gratitude towards the rangers, and perhaps the rangers could receive some assistance from time to time? Either with specific missions, or as 'mysterious strangers' who help out during a fight every now and then. (Take a pot shot or two when it looks safe to do so — raiders wouldn't sacrifice themselves for rangers, no matter what.) Innocent travellers who are released would praise the rangers wherever they go, and might also be of some assistance in the future. Perhaps a competent raider or traveller could be recruited into the party?

If the rangers leave without making any demands for change, the settlement will grow more powerful, and the custom of gathering and keeping forced labour will spread across the wasteland. Long term effects could be showed in an ending slide if there isn't enough time for such changes to affect the actual game. More specific effects could be that patrols capture more people that the rangers would want to talk to. Perhaps even small camps of 'raiders'? Important NPCs could be killed during such events. Or they might end up working in places where the rangers wouldn't find them. Or perhaps the rangers would just find it awfully convenient to know exactly where to look for persons of interest? Just roll into town, have a chat with the chums in charge, and they'll gladly present anyone the friendly rangers are asking for? Bad karma is mainly supposed to affect the next life, right?

Perhaps "Fort Disco" could be Quartz, Needles or Las Vegas? In that case the close proximity of the Ranger Center and other regular ranger patrols could work as the rangers' 'big stick' while they are making demands, and the Ranger Center could probably provide impartial judges. Though if the Ranger Center keeps close tabs on those settlements, perhaps the rampant used of forced labour would never have been allowed to go as far as described?

[TheHarpoMarxist]

I kind of love that InExile is crowdsourcing mission ideas. Here's a quick description, enjoy!

I'm thinking there is some sort of distress call over the radio at specific coordinates. If the Ranger's investigate those coordinates they find some sort of abandoned building. When they locate the source of the distress call, the party is suddenly separated somehow (via a technological trap.)

The building / structure is loaded with traps, and each party member has to use their specific skills - without the help of the rest of the team - to survive a variety of obstacles and deathtraps. Once the party escapes (or along the way) they get clues as to some sort of mad scientist who designed this hellish, trap-laden place. They can seek this scientist out and take revenge, or perhaps recruit him to be a team member or assist in some other way. I think a majority of player's would go for blood after escaping, but it could be a nice reward to ally with the madman who created that particular nightmare scenerio.

[CaptainPatch]

If the latter, the local equivalent of the Medical Examiner will find some of Pat's jewelry hidden in the clothing of one of the kidnapper's body when the body was exhumed.

Unless the rangers have had a reason to not loot their fallen enemies before, I don't see why they wouldn't already have done so in this case. And if the jewellery is so hard to find that the rangers weren't even given a chance to loot it, why would anyone else find it? Well, maybe if it was hidden inside the body for the medical examiner to find? "I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass for two years." (Or "days", in case of the dead kidnapper.) Or perhaps the medical examiner has a metal detector? And the rangers will never, ever get one. Ever. Because that would be cheating.

Generally, scavengers will be looking for specific things like weapons, ammo, cash, etc. Turning out easily identifiable pockets and pouches is quite likely. But if one of the kidnappers was holding out on his partners by using a hidden pocket to secret away his loot, it would probably be overlooked by the kind of cursory examination that a scavenger would perform. An ME, otoh, generally does a more thorough exam as he tries to learn what there is to be learned from the body itself. Furthermore, this particular ME would be specifically looking for Pat's jewelry as it had not turned up on anyone in the Ranger party. Finding the jewelry hidden on the body of someone that the Rangers claim to have killed when they took possession of Pat places the "smoking gun" on the dead kidnappers rather than on the Rangers. In short, it pretty solidly confirms the Rangers' claims of innocence.

I figure that the Reagan hovertanks probably used some kind of nuclear engine, so fuel is less of an issue, but they're only going to have so many shells.

I'm thinking that a hovertank would probably be equipped with weapons that lack significant recoil. And I imagine that anything that fires shells would be likely to have a lot of recoil. With a nuclear engine it seems more suitable for the tank to be equipped with a laser cannon. But who knows?

Recoil-less rifle? TOW weapon? Any kind of missile-launching system?

[Nanotrop]

I think there is a place for some soviet characters in this game. I'm not a good writer (and I can't say that my english is perfect) but I can provide a lot of information about USSR and its army. And I can guarantee that this information will be very accurate. Any ideas?

[phimseto]

The #1 thing I have wanted in post-apocalyptic game has remained the same: to take a town, rebuild it, populate it with recruitable characters from across the Wasteland, and end the game with a beacon of shining light in the darkness.

A chance to:

- Rebuild buildings
- Give those buildings functionality via equipment and people.
- Repopulate the town.
- Install cool defenses.
- Generate missions related to the town as I'm doing this.

I'm guessing the HQ will cover a lot of this, so that's cool. It would be nice in this game or future games to be able to not just help villages out but leave people better off than they were before and to build on past successes.

[paultakeda]

I'm not laying out a mission point for point but rather laying out an area for multiple potential missions that can form an arc. This is possibly an expansion module if too far flung from the central area of the main game.

The LA Basin remained highly irradiated for an extended period due to weather patterns keeping the majority of fallout inside the basin. Fringe coastal communities escaped much of this but with the leaking San Onofre plant to the south and the Sierra Pelona mountains to the north these communities were all but isolated from the rest of humanity until very recently when the LA Basin finally began dropping rads and suddenly these coastal zones realize they have an exposed flank to the east.

What kind of communities dot the beaches of Southern California? Patchwork and ethnically/socially diverse areas like Santa Monica, Venice, Redondo et al. plus more affluent, ethnically monotonous places like Laguna Niguel would have very interesting interactions with one another over the several decades of isolation. The ocean becomes a faster mode of transportation. War on the water, barricades on land. Catalina Island becomes an interesting possibility.

But now with the east opened up, though they perhaps keep guard against irradiated mutations the influx of humans from beyond the basin becomes a new variable. Friend, foe, both? Power will exchange hands within and without as these communities, the past decades surviving and warring with each other, now have to look east.

The coast and the Pacific would be an interesting change of pace for the desert rangers, whose experiences with water are rapids and small lakes.

[Drool]

I'm thinking that a hovertank would probably be equipped with weapons that lack significant recoil. And I imagine that anything that fires shells would be likely to have a lot of recoil. With a nuclear engine it seems more suitable for the tank to be equipped with a laser cannon. But who knows?

Recoil-less rifle? TOW weapon? Any kind of missile-launching system?

Perhaps. Could be some kind of rail weaponry. And, hell, the coaxial gun would be, comparatively, low recoil, and probably be enough to scare your average raider.

[piecar]

It starts rather regular... to save a guy from a slave pit that his mother asked you to find. He was a good boy, always on the straight and narrow, was great at making things.

The hitch is this: while in the slave pit the only way the guy could escape the situation was through drugs which he incrementally started to use, until he became more and more addicted. When you save him he is grateful and gives you some item/supplies for your troubles. But the next time you ask him for something, he starts to insist on compensation with drugs.

If you comply with his request, the guy becomes more pliable to your wishes by doing what you tell him (since you are now his dealer) or more willing to be informative about the situations going on in the world. The downside being that he is less able to make/sell you items, since he's less coherent to make quality items.

If you choose not to give him the drugs the guy will have more items to sell you/ better quality, but he is less willing to work with you. And the prices are slightly higher.

[CaptainPatch]

It starts rather regular... to save a guy from a slave pit that his mother asked you to find. He was a good boy, always on the straight and narrow, was great at making things.

This starts out sounding like, "Save my baby!", but then turns into "Add a NPC to the party". "Save my baby!" is standard fair; do it and walk away. If the NPC is problematic for _any_ reason, just dump him and walk away. Problem solved.