Red Dwarf is very much a personality-driven show. While personality is ultimately the responsibility of the players, I appreciate the fact that the game provides them with a bit of help in the form of XPG's standard Asset/Liability/Behavioral Tag system. Among the more Dwarf-ish selections are Dumb Luck, Gimboid, Smeghead, and Chirpy Optimism.

---

Playtest: The hologram's player selected Chirpy Optimism as a Behavioral Tag, which proved definitively that holograms needn't be Smegheads like Rimmer in order to grate on one's nerves.

---

The chapter also includes tables arranging skills alphabetically and by stat, a personality trait list, and an example of a completed character sheet.

Chapter Six: Rules of Play

Red Dwarf uses Deep7's XPG system, which I've previously described in my Mean Streets and Bloode Island XPG reviews.

---

Playtest: As was the case in the latter game, I had a bit of trouble with the unforgiving nature of the system. The relatively low levels of PC competence seemed more thematic here than they did in Bloode Island, since the PCs aren't expected to be swashbuckling heroes. However, I did feel as though I was having to walk eggshells to keep from accidentally killing the characters off, and in some cases the incompetence just became an annoyance.

In the "GELF Golf" adventure (see below), for example, the hologram in the group had to spend round after round on the golf course trying to get a critical success, which was the only way she could possibly hit the ball in the right direction. As a montage of failed shots on the show, this would have been amusing, but in play, it became tiresome.

And once again, the binding re-rolls provided by Destiny Points didn't seem to compensate – especially when the PC in question was starting out with a small chance of success in the first place. The players' attitude in such circumstances seemed to be that they might as well accept failure and hang on to their DPs to use on a re-roll of a skill at which they had a good chance of succeeding. (Thereby setting up the opposite dynamic of that created by Drama Points in Buffy, which the players tend to spend to make up for low scores.) Now, I found out through conversation with Todd Downing that (1) I was being too stingy about giving out DPs and that (2) players can spend more than one DP per roll – facts that, in my defense, I don't think the book makes very clear. Still, I didn't notice any increased use of DPs once I corrected myself in the following session.

Don't be surprised if many of your players take the Dumb Luck Asset, which lets them add 1d6 to the Target Number once or twice per session. Actually, I think that would be a better way for the Destiny Points to work, perhaps at the cost of a humorously embarrassing circumstance if the DP actually saves the PC's bacon.

Also, this is the first time I've pitted PCs against clearly superhuman creatures using XPG – in this case, dinosaurs. In the process, I noticed an oddity regarding the SHRUG and SAVE scores, which are used to reduce damage and to remain conscious when taking damage, respectively. SHRUG is based on the average of Strength and Willpower, while SAVE is based upon adding the two and using the result as a Target Number. Because the dinos had a high Strength but a low Willpower, they ended up with a very high SAVE but a SHRUG that was only one point higher than Dave Lister's. In other words, they could be shot to pieces just about as easily as a human, but were less likely to pass out from the pain – not much consolation when the poor critter is getting blown to bits and racking up wound penalties. My conclusion here is that SAVE ought to be based on straight Strength. Willpower may help you keep going in the face of pain, but it shouldn't have anything to do with whether you get hurt in the first place. In lieu of that, consider giving your big, tough monstrosities some points of armor to take up the slack.

That aside, the system faded nicely into the background, allowing me to concentrate on the humor – a very big mark in its favor. The basic mechanic itself isn't particularly funny aside from some amusing wound level names (e.g., "Smoldering Hole"), but I think an overabundance of wacky rules would be too heavy-handed for simulating Red Dwarf's brand of humor.

---

One change specific to this game is the new fear mechanic, which requires a Resist roll to keep from fleeing and, if the Resist roll fails, a Cool roll to keep the flight from turning into outright panic (and a reaction to be determined by a roll on the Fear Table). Furthermore, a Critical Failure on either roll results in a trip to a Space Madness Table as large and amusing as Captain Hollister. (My favorite result: Melancholy: Character feels morose and must listen to old Smiths and Echo & the Bunnyment CDs. Duration: Until player writes a sad love song to AI satisfaction.)

---

Playtest: I didn't really see the need to break this mechanic into so many rolls. At the very least, I think the Fear Table results could be based upon the degree of success or failure on the Cool roll.

---

Another noteworthy addition to XPG in this book is the vehicle combat rules. Unlike the ship-to-ship combat rules in Bloode Island XPG, vehicle combat in Red Dwarf isn't abstracted: weapon systems use standard weapon stats, ships can take evasive action in the same manner that individuals can dodge, the ship's HULL rating functions as SHRUG, etc. I find this to be much more to my taste.

---

Playtest: I did discover one quirk regarding the rule for shields, however. Shields are ablative, with a shield rating that drops by one point every time the ship is hit until the shield collapses. Taken at face value, this means that weapon damage isn't an issue until the shield goes down, so an attacker might as well lob a barrage of spitwads to blow the enemy's shield before hitting him with the big stuff. However, Todd clarified that while playing it that way is an option, the idea is that shields drop a level after taking a damaging hit. That makes quite a bit more sense to me, even if it makes the resistance (as opposed to durability) of a shield a function of the hull it's protecting.

Ship-to-ship combat didn't come up in my playtest game, so I ran one on my own. I decided to pit a GELF ship against Starbug, adding a 3-point Shield to the former and a laser cannon on a turret to the latter. I used a stat+skill score of 9 wherever applicable.

The combat proved to be highly enlightening. Initially, Starbug had the advantage. Because it had a gun turret, the pilot could take evasive action while the turret gunner returned fire. The GELF pilot couldn't get in a hit with his two fixed-wing laser cannons and couldn't take evasive action himself if he wanted to fire. (Evasive action must be declared on the pilot's turn and precludes the pilot from taking any other actions that round.)

However, that was with the Starbug's pilot winning initiative. As soon as the GELF pilot won initiative, he was able to fire before the Starbug could begin taking evasive action. The hits from the twin laser cannons quickly racked up damage penalties on the Starbug, making its subsequent evasive maneuvers less effective. (Not that it would have mattered, since the GELF ship won initiative for the rest of the combat.) Within six rounds, the Starbug was reduced to a "Drifting Hulk" on the Vehicle Damage scale.

So, first off, I'd have to say that vehicle combat is fast-paced and fun. And second, it's my observation that while the ability to evade and return fire is very useful, shields trump this ability by working (1) automatically and (2) regardless of whether or not the shielded craft wins initiative. If the GELF ship had been the standard shieldless one from the rulebook, it would have been Moderately Damaged (and hence would have had a -2 penalty to all relevant target numbers) before getting its first hit on Starbug. Superior firepower is awfully handy at wrapping up a fight quickly as well, of course.

Note that this gives small one-man fighter craft a very hard time of it – they could evade like nobody's business, but only while not firing. As a result, it would be difficult to use this system to simulate a WWII fighter attack on a bomber squadron (which is a surprisingly plausible occurrence in this setting). To remedy the problem, I would suggest adding maneuverability to initiative target numbers, allowing evasive maneuvers to be reactive, or allowing pilots to fire at a penalty while evading.

---