T2K v1.........or v2 ??

[Gabe The Gun]

What is the difference between v1 and v2? Is the system and rules different? Is v2 easier to run and play? Are the rules more clear than v1? What are your opinions?

[pmulcahy11b]

V1:
1) Character Generation rules better
2) Task resolution OK, but could be better
2) Personal and fire combat rules better
3) Timeline better
4) Vehicle combat rules way too complicated

V2/2.2
1) Character Generation rules suck
2) Task resolution still OK, but could still be better
2) Personal and fire combat not lethal enough
3) Timeline doesn't make sense in several ways
4) Vehicle combat rules very streamlined and much easier to resolve

Basically, the biggest difference is that V1 is based on a d100 system, while v2/2.2 is a d20-based system. V2.2 improves on V2 in several ways, but I wish GDW had survived longer to make their own V3.

I'm sure there's more...

[Targan]

Since my high school days playing Runequest I've favoured d100 systems over anything else. I've only ever played 1st ed T2K but I have a couple of 2nd ed books. When I converted T2K to Harnmaster/Gunmaster I ported over a vehicle combat system using elements from both v1 and v2 T2K.

Basically I prefer rules crunchy over rules light so I tend to steer clear of anything that I perceive to be "dumbed down" in an RPG system. I know that it is a personal bias and probably not always fair to some of what I would consider to be "rules light" systems, but hey, at least I'm not kidding myself. I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of an RPG rules elitist. I do understand the POV of those who believe that complicated rules get in the way of good storytelling. Long live diversity!

[Twilight2000v3MM]

Paul hit it in the head though I favor V2/2.2 more than v1 if I had to choose between the two.

[leonpoi]

I was playing v1 probably 15 years ago, or more. After more than a decade, I got v2.2 and started playing about a two years ago. In my opinion v1 was a too slow to play - vehicle combat is tough to resolve and very time consuming, and the initiative system requires a lot of thought (though I did like it in principle).

v2.2 is one of my favourite game systems for balance between speed and complexity. I've got houserules for autofire and a few other things, but mostly I play it as is. I do prefer the v1 timeline except that it's a bit out of date now (we actually use a combination of the 2 timelines, and in fact it really makes little difference once you start playing). I also really like the v2.2 character generation system.

I agree that personal combat is not lethal enough in v2.2. To get around this I've done a few things, but the most significant is reducing "hit points" roughly to 2/3 of the original number (e.g. CONx2 = STR rather than 2x(CON + STR) for chest). I think v2.2 also makes it too easy to heal, so I've used what I think is v1 healing.

At the end of the day I wouldn't play v1 simply because of the vehicle combat system. I grew up on Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and therefore started in d100, but I prefer the d20 system of v2.2 (it's not d20 d20, it just uses 20-sided dice). I like it because you can just pick up a bunch of d20s and roll them if you shoot multiple bullets rather than having to roll multiple d100s, which is quicker. v1 actually has a strange abstract system for smallarms which bugs some people too (each "shot" is actually 3 bullets - this is probably why it's more "lethal"). v2.2 has a cool quick-kill rule for head and chest shots that I like because it means that even low damage pistol rounds can you kill you out-right and this puts fear into every combat.

In short, I prefer v2.2because it's more streamlined but still very detailed. I play it as is except a few house rules:

some weapons stats have been changed - just because I wanted to
medical treatment rules have been slightly tweaked
smallarms is tied to AGL not STR - recoil is still STR, however
"Hit points" reduced
Initiative system made a hybrid of v1 and v2.2 and the macro combat from ruins of warsaw (some suppression/morale rules also from tw2013)
autofire at less than 1/2 of short range is at 1/2 skill and not 1/4. 5-round burst range increment also changed to S-5, M-3, L-2, E-1 because the rules as is had long range with 1-dice, which was a bit harsh.

[Rainbow Six]

v1 actually has a strange abstract system for smallarms which bugs some people too (each "shot" is actually 3 bullets - this is probably why it's more "lethal")

I was one of those people...;) I hated the fact that the mag sizes were all a third of what they should be. If I remember correctly the designers commented about the thinking behind it somewhere in V2.

[pmulcahy11b]

Leonpoi: d100 takes more time unless you're like me and have several d100s ;) (actual 100-sided dice -- they used to make them) or use a computer program.

Like you, I also used a "point blank" range that is half of short range, where your chances of hitting are doubled, and in autofire, each bullet hit on a 1-3 on the d6.

I didn't like the 3 rounds = 1 shot of V1, though I really didn't like the vehicle combat rules. It could take 2 or 3 minutes to resolve one hit against a vehicle, and when you were designing new vehicles, you were often educated-guessing as to where the components of the vehicle were.

[Twilight2000v3MM]

I agree that the vehicle combat was complex but it was also very detailed. Which is good and bad.

[Frank Frey]

Greetings,

Between the two versions, I preferred V2/2.2. It was quicker and easier for me to run. I'm not much into "crunchy" rules systems. In fact, if I were to run T2K today, I'd use the Savage Worlds System.

Frank Frey

[leonpoi]

I agree that the vehicle combat was complex but it was also very detailed. Which is good and bad.

I agree that it was a good system, but more suited for a computer game or for use with an automated computer programme.

@pmulcahy11b Re: d100, fair enough call, especially in v1 when you do less "shots" :o

[pmulcahy11b]

I think another argument for 1 shot = 1 round is that, even with automatic weapons, people are going to be taking more semiautomatic, aimed shots and short bursts -- by 2000, people simply can't afford to waste the ammunition on "mad minutes" anymore, and marksmanship will be more valuable than volume of firepower.

(Actually, it should be now as well -- suppressive fire has its value, but I think it's more important to kill your enemy than firing off thousands of rounds and simply causing them to withdraw, or hoping that some of your un-aimed fire hits someone. I say that as someone who did take the half a second or so that it took to put your sights on a target and kill them with one shot.)

[Adm.Lee]

I will agree with most of the above, Except that I preferred v2.2's character generation. I'm a fan of "lifepath" style characters, and so were most of my players. I used v2. almost entirely for Merc/crime, rather than WW3, games, so the chargen was a plus for people to make up all kinds of unique backgrounds. I'm still tempted to try it for an espionage game sometime.

I didn't feel that combat wasn't deadly enough, but upon reflection, the PCs did live pretty well. I prefer the autofire rule from v2, that's the one that sticks most in my mind.

Frank F. mentions Savage Worlds, I was thinking about that for T2k someday (or Cortex, I like it a lot, too), it would very likely flow quicker. I wonder if some of the loss of crunch might detract from the atmosphere. When I played most of my T2k, it was among wargamers who liked the level of complexity that felt like it should go with the complexity of the weapons & technology.

[Mahatatain]

The problem I always found with the T2k "Term" character generation system is that you end up with too many senior NCOs and Officers and almost no characters who are either OR3 or lower in rank or under 29 years old.

I personally prefer a "point" based system where everyone has the same number of starting points to generate their character. The problem with using this method in T2k is that you (as a GM) have to force some decisions regarding ranks and essentially pick the players who you want to be the senior leadership of the unit (assuming that the PCs are still following a formal rank structure).

[pmulcahy11b]

I personally prefer a "point" based system where everyone has the same number of starting points to generate their character. The problem with using this method in T2k is that you (as a GM) have to force some decisions regarding ranks and essentially pick the players who you want to be the senior leadership of the unit (assuming that the PCs are still following a formal rank structure).

That really is a good idea -- and sort a vote for a GURPS-based system. Has anyone here used GURPS to run T2K?

I've found that in actual games, the player of the character that seems to know the best what they're doing usually ends up in charge, regardless of his character's rank.

[pmulcahy11b]

The thing that bothers me about the character generation system of v2/2.2 is that it doesn't really allow for the diversity of skills and experience that many people IRL have, especially at higher rank or lengths of service. I've seen it posted several times on this board and its predecessors that they couldn't even generate themselves or many people they've known in life using the V2/2.2 system.

[Webstral]

(Actually, it should be now as well -- suppressive fire has its value, but I think it's more important to kill your enemy than firing off thousands of rounds and simply causing them to withdraw, or hoping that some of your un-aimed fire hits someone. I say that as someone who did take the half a second or so that it took to put your sights on a target and kill them with one shot.)

Amen.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Neither system is great, IMO. I find them both rather awkward and bulky. I know v2.2 better since that's the one I've used the most. I've used v1.0 once or twice and it's OK, but I felt more limited in terms of the characters that I could create. Theoretically, it should be more flexible and offer more options for character creation but in reality, I found that it does not.

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.

I think a combination of v1.0 and v2.2 (point buy + career paths) would be better. There would still be skill paths with pre-determined basic skills and suggested skill suites for each career, but each career term would be allotted a certain number of skill points to spend however the player saw fit. Players could buy skills from a general pool. This would provide some structure but still give the player the flexibility to really customize his/her PC.

I also think that the number of skills- but not necessarily the type of skills- should be equitable for each career. I really don't like how some careers in v2.2 get beucoup skills and skill options whereas others get significantly fewer.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.


That is a problem with my character generation system --it's nothing like the v2.2 system. I simply came to the conclusion that the v2.2 character generation system was better off trashed completely, and I was helped by a couple of guys who used to post regularly (one name should be familiar to some of you -- Orrin Ladd). That said, I'll admit that my system is quite the messy kludge, but it accomplished the results I was after -- more flexibility in character generation.

[leonpoi]

The thing that bothers me about the character generation system of v2/2.2 is that it doesn't really allow for the diversity of skills and experience that many people IRL have, especially at higher rank or lengths of service. I've seen it posted several times on this board and its predecessors that they couldn't even generate themselves or many people they've known in life using the V2/2.2 system.

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period. I give characters 2 skill points per 2ndary activity which they can use to increase attributes as normal for 2 points or actually put into 2 skills. One skill must be 2ndary act the other can be or can be from career. This gives a little bit more flexibility with skill choice and if I let them take hell early this means that they have a couple more skill points to diversify.

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[Cdnwolf]

(Looking innocent)... so something like the Twilight 2013 rules... minus the horrible storyline??

[weswood]

I have a bastardized system I use based on TSR's Top Secret/SI character system with mostly my own combat rules. It's a D100 system, combat runs fast and fairly deadly.

The careers are mostly my own inventions. A player buys the skills needed from a pool based on his Intelligence. He can also buy rank using his skill points, and each level of ranks adds a preset number of years to the character's beginning age. The beginning age is determined by 16+ 1d4, plus any modifications for rank or education.

[pmulcahy11b]

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

[pmulcahy11b]

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period.

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

[leonpoi]

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

Well I stand corrected, especially when you consider that in the tw2k context this tanker was 59 before the hell 4-year term, plus it is WW3 afterall.

[leonpoi]

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this?

[pmulcahy11b]

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this?

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

[leonpoi]

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

I only meant during char gen., but I suppose if character's lived long enough (4 more years) then I'd think about it. You make a good point though. If I ignore it during char gen then it doesn't matter how long terms are and players can kind of choose their age, within the limits of their experience and careers.

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore :(

-------
Poor Gabe The Gun, he's going to look at this thread and say, "wooo, too much info, might play gunmaster instead."

[pmulcahy11b]

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore :(

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...:(

[Cdnwolf]

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...:(

AND thats why they invented Viagra :D

[pmulcahy11b]

AND thats why they invented Viagra :D

LOL! Maybe that's why I'm seeing a urologist on Thursday for pain in my testicles -- they're clogged up!

[Targan]

LOL! Maybe that's why I'm seeing a urologist on Thursday for pain in my testicles -- they're clogged up!

I'm left speechless.

Good luck buddy. :D

[headquarters]

I want to strike a blow for V 2.0 - this intermediate edition is the best imho - it needs a bit of tweaking -as do most RPGs ( yeah ,yeah Targan not harnmaster bla bla:D )

But I find that right amount of tweaks and balanced lethality system is paramaount to get what I prefer -a fast paced game that allows for detailed phase resolution without getting bogged down in tables and endless dice rolls.

( example : Three characters letting their MK-19s run full auto on multiple enemy targets on foot,vehicular ,with varied distances and speeds,armour values etcetc ..)

Char generation needs upgrades in all three editions imho ,but the gamble against the "war starts " dice is interesting and adds a dimension to it I find enjoyable.

V.2.0 gentlemen. better thans its reputation and compareable to other world class systems !

[Adm.Lee]

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

I've thought about using 3-year terms, and/or then having a d6 roll to round up or down a year at the end of chargen.

Re: 59-year old tanker. My great-grandfather *may* have gone to WW1 ~age 57. He was a sergeant in the Pennsylvania NG, and I have a photo of him in the regiment's pre-deployment "yearbook." I just haven't found any evidence beyond that. That same regiment went to Luzon in 1898-99, but again, no hard evidence.

[boogiedowndonovan]

LOL! Maybe that's why I'm seeing a urologist on Thursday for pain in my testicles -- they're clogged up!

TOO MUCH INFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



as for V1 or V2, I prefer V2, V2.2.

I hated the 1 shot = 3 rds of V1, but oddly enough, I liked the vehicle combat system, or actually the different armor values (front, front left, front right, etc) and damage resolution. But like others said, it slowed things down alot.

I liked the inclusion of civilian careers and other nation military careers in V2.

When I gm'ed V2 and V2.2, I got into some pretty heavy debates about the aging and not getting the same amount of skills when you get older. I won of course, because I was the GM, but now that I'm older, I can understand the reasoning. But we did a lot of tweaking the number of skill points and terms.

Does anyone recall Brian Bilderback's postings on the old webprg forum, he posted a very detailed reworking of the V2 character generation system.

Like Paul said, age related attribute loss is real. I'm definitely fatter, slower than I was in my late teen's-20's. I believe that scientific studies have also shown that your brain is at its peak in your late 20's...

[pmulcahy11b]

When I gm'ed V2 and V2.2, I got into some pretty heavy debates about the aging and not getting the same amount of skills when you get older.

I can understand the attribute loss in physical stats. There's less justification in saying that the older you get, the less capacity you have to learn something new. Yes, many of us will get old and senile, or, like my mother who's had two strokes, will struggle with mastering new concepts. But most people don't "get dumber as they get older" -- the amount of knowledge they amass in a long lifetime can be truly surprising, and as you accumulate knowledge, you build upon it and learn even more. I could understand if T2K was a game about troops who get out of the military and settle down to a sedentary, couch-potato lifestyle (like I have:o), but most survivors of World War 3 aren't going to be like that, because by and large you can't survive that way. People who can't keep learning new stuff are probably going to die, and they wouldn't live to become characters in T2K.

A soldier who has survived World War 3 is smart, tough, agile, savvy, and has learned a LOT, or he'd already be dead. World War 3 survivors would almost by definition be the cream of the crop of the human race (whether an evil cream or a good cream, or just survivor cream) -- either that, or you've been given way more than your allotment of luck.

[Raellus]

NPR's Morning Edition did a piece late last week about the myths of brain aging. I wish I could remember the name of the book they were discussing. Apparently, recent research studies have shown that middle-aged folks are better at seeing patterns, organizing information, and making connections than younger folks supposedly in their cognitive prime (i.e. late 20s). Significant drop-offs in cognitive performance were not seen until after age 60 or so in most otherwise healthy adults.

Also, studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until the mid-to-late twenties. That's why kids and college-aged young adults often make really poor choices. They're brains aren't wired to consider all of the possible future ramifications of their behavior.

I don't think skills requiring cognitive processes should be penalized in older PCs. Physical processes, probably. Perhaps older PCs wouldn't learn NEW cognitive skills quite as quickly as young folks, though.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I was of the impression that the only real justification for the age related loss of stats was due to the lack of medical/health care in the post-apocalypse world until someone pointed out to me that these penalties apply during career generation before the war (yes I did have a serious "dumb" moment at that time - it was many years ago now and alcohol may have contributed). After I realized that I figured that for someone in a military career (or police, fire etc) there was less chance for age related loss simply because you were supposed to maintain your health and fitness
I think now that the age penalties should be done via Age AND career rather than age alone with some careers helping to combat the loss and some actively allowing it. However, I rarely played the game let alone ran it so I don't have the depth of knowledge to actively rewrite all of that

[Owen E Oulton]

I'm going to vote for T2Kv2.2, the so-called "d20" version (before WotC usurped the title "d20" for it's version of D&D). T2K 1 with its 3 rounds = 1 "shot" and the need for a doctorate in advanced maths just to do CharGen was unweildy - even more so than anything Rich Tucholka has ever come up with. This is, I think, one of the most elegant character generation systems around, and Chargen is the beating heart of any RPG.

[irontyrant]

Not trying to go too far off topic here but I have never used the aging modifiers in my games. I agree to a certain extent that aging can cause you to lose certain qualities but the levels used in RPGs seem to be a little harsh. Using my own experiences I can say that as a 42 year old I am definitely in better shape than I was at 18 my stamina, endurance, and strength are all much better and although I was never really that fast my speed is comparable. I agree that mental capabilities remain strong for most people well into their later years, although I.Q.s get kind of fubared due to the increasing divisor but not enough IMHO to qualify in an RPG sense to subtract as much as many systems do.

I think a lot of the systems show an innate discrimination against the aged that is prevalent in our society.

[irontyrant]

I really dig all the editions of T2K( except 2013). In my own games I use mostly 2.2, with a healthy dose of Paul's great stuff, for characters and personal combat; like others have posted I have changed the damage system by removing all multipliers for hit location. I also have incorporated stature back into my games, I think it works better for me in terms of suspension of disbelief, especially for knockdown. I have also doubled the damage dice for most small arms particularly those that are unrealistically feeble ( shot guns I'm looking at you!). I also really dig V1's skill point allotment particularly.

I also use a combo of V1,2.2 vehicle combat. I know it slows down play but I really like the armor ratings for the different vehicle areas, so I use the v1 hit locations but use the condensed ratings from 2.2 with the penetration ratings from 2.2 as well.

I like the house system so much that with the few modifications I've gathered from Paul I use it for just about all my games regardless of genre.

[Targan]

I notice that many posters have cited v1's 1 shot = 3 rounds system as a big negative and that surprises me, not because I liked 1 shot equalling 3 rounds but because it was such a minor rule and so easy to fix. Just multiply listed magazine capacities by 3 and house rule that 1 shot = 1 round. Tweak rates of fire as required, add extra little house rules for weapons designed to primarilly fire three round bursts.

[copeab]

That really is a good idea -- and sort a vote for a GURPS-based system. Has anyone here used GURPS to run T2K?


I almost did about 20 years ago -- a player created an artillerist, but he waw never run.

The last few years I've toyed with the idea of using the T2K setting with ... Fudge ;)

[Gabe The Gun]

Just got my V2 set in so I will be reading it up along with my 2013! Yeah E-Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got the main V2 book and the Infantry weopons of the world for 12 buks brand new including shipping! SWEET!

[waiting4something]

Just got my V2 set in so I will be reading it up along with my 2013! Yeah E-Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got the main V2 book and the Infantry weopons of the world for 12 buks brand new including shipping! SWEET!

Yeah, the V2 book is the shit. Infantry Weapons of the World is very cool. I love that book it's about as good as any Jane's weapon books. In fact, I have seen more mistakes in a Jane's that I had bought once.:(