v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Raellus]

I'm interested in what y'all think about v4's rules and game mechanics. Please keep discussion of the v4 game world over in:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=85705#post85705

-

[Olefin]

Good idea to move the mechanics here. I would also like to be able to discuss the artwork here as well which is one thing that V4 is definitely excelling it. I think that it’s very good and definitely one feature they got right

[Raellus]

I would also like to be able to discuss the artwork here as well which is one thing that V4 is definitely excelling it.

Hey, something we agree 100% about! The artwork is indeed amazing.

-

[mpipes]

Yay....about those mechanics....where do I start.

I am not a fan so far. Yes, I have bitched over the years about the attribute and skill ratings and rules in V 1, 2, 2.1, and 2.2, but they are absolutely first rate compared to these!! I was hoping for something at least a bit more D&Dish that was a bit more intuitive, but alas that hope has been dashed.

The A, B, C, and D drivel is just that.....not at all intuitive. I was wanting to see a more straightforward set of attributes built around Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Charisma, and Intelligence with Education being more akin to a learned skill and tied to Intelligence. Still not sure how to roll for anything. Skill bonuses seem to make sense, but not sure they allow for truly exceptional (like my current PC Sniper "Morg" Cole - 56 kills in the Campaign - 17 skill overall in Rifle).

Weapon rating system. Clunky and non-intuitive. GDW much easier to understand. Meters and kilos. And the ratings are far from intuitive (a .50 BMG M82 is Damage 4 while a 7.62 M21 is Damage 3 and a 14.6mm KPV is a Damage 4 - I just don't buy that) I just don't like the combat damage system as presented. The Critical rules look very promising. Vehicle combat looks a mess, but I am just tired at this point.

I could go on, but I think I will leave it to others to flesh it all out. I just don't find it intuitive. You'll have players going back and forth constantly to the rules and forever bickering about that "not sounding right." And alas, the KPV 14.5mm IS MUCH MORE POWERFUL (about twice more) than a .50 - that's just physics. Not sure what these guys are using, but their conversion formula is either far too coarse or just plain wrong.

[mpipes]

One last thought tonight....

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!! :confused:

[Rainbow Six]

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!! :confused:
It will probably take me weeks to try and get my head round the mechanics. I may even wait until I get the hardcopy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

One last thought tonight....

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!! :confused:
I don't like these mechanics. They're derived from the Year Zero rules that Free League uses as the base for all their games (as far as I am aware). They suit episodic, non-campaign style games and I've seen a particular trend among fans of the Year Zero rules that seems to bear this out.
They will play one Year Zero game until they get bored with it and then they'll start up a new game with a different Year Zero game. When they get bored with that one, they ship over to the next Year Zero game until they complete the circle and come back to the first game.

I don't see any longevity in that approach, it seems to me that they are simply playing the game to kill time rather than to follow the journey of their character.
I'd rather play RIFTS with all the problems of its hashed together AD&D mechanics because at least I can expect the game to last more than a few adventures.

[Targan]

Yep, the mechanics were a dealbreaker for me from day one.

[Benjamin]

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

Personally I'd use the Cepheus Engine rules every single time in preference to a lot of other recent rules such as the Year Zero rules or the Gumshoe system

[Ewan]

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

Modern War is an excellent rules set and very easily adaptable to the T2K setting and already there has been a good number of supplements released for it including one for WW1.

The Baltic War supplement has a limited war between NATO and Russia in Belarus and the Baltic states that has not escalated (yet) to neighboring countries. The campaign is open ended enough that you can develop it as you see it. I might be a bit biased about Baltic War has I helped out on it but its a really good supplement.

In addition I've written a short article that was published in the Cepheus Journal which details an early 80s British section for the game (see attached).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Oh by all that's good & decent in the world of gaming...
Has anyone tried to make sense of the ammunition mechanic in this system?
It appears to have been designed by people who have no actual experience with firearms.
It's awful.

The rules seem to work on the idea that if your character is not particularly good at combat then they are going to waste ammo - I don't particularly disagree with the intent but I do disagree with the implementation. But further than that, it also effects the percentile chance of having a mishap with the firearm. It seems to be that the more you fire in a turn, the higher your chances for having a mishap and this pays no attention to skill level of the shooter.

I can't express it, or my misgivings about it, as well as the person who posted the following on the Free League forums (emphasis mine): -
https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=7058&start=10

Post #17 by cheeplives -
"... the way the game is set up you have a 25% chance of mishap WHENEVER you use 4 Ammo dice. That's basically saying that a pintle mounted MG get messed up a quarter of the time its used in combat. That .50 cal on the Abrams? After suppressing the enemy for a bit, it's definitley going to need to be replaced/repaired/unjammed. Once again, this is a spot where the mechanics start creating disincentives for specific actions due to flukes of the system, not because of any kind of modeled reality, verisimilitude, or reason... it's just a wrinkle with no real reason."

[mpipes]

I guess they never heard about water cooled machineguns in WWI that routinely fired upwards of 1 million rounds with no stoppages.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It gets worse...
Every firearm has a reliability rating from D to A (A being best). Most weapons in the player's book are rated at A
However...
This seems to have very little impact on your chance for a malfunction due to the random nature of the ammo dice mechanic

So why have reliability at all?
I am scratching my head so hard I'll have bald spots soon!

[swaghauler]

Oh by all that's good & decent in the world of gaming...
Has anyone tried to make sense of the ammunition mechanic in this system?
It appears to have been designed by people who have no actual experience with firearms.
It's awful.

The rules seem to work on the idea that if your character is not particularly good at combat then they are going to waste ammo - I don't particularly disagree with the intent but I do disagree with the implementation. But further than that, it also effects the percentile chance of having a mishap with the firearm. It seems to be that the more you fire in a turn, the higher your chances for having a mishap and this pays no attention to skill level of the shooter.

I can't express it, or my misgivings about it, as well as the person who posted the following on the Free League forums (emphasis mine): -
https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=7058&start=10

Post #17 by cheeplives -
"... the way the game is set up you have a 25% chance of mishap WHENEVER you use 4 Ammo dice. That's basically saying that a pintle mounted MG get messed up a quarter of the time its used in combat. That .50 cal on the Abrams? After suppressing the enemy for a bit, it's definitley going to need to be replaced/repaired/unjammed. Once again, this is a spot where the mechanics start creating disincentives for specific actions due to flukes of the system, not because of any kind of modeled reality, verisimilitude, or reason... it's just a wrinkle with no real reason."

I guess I'd have to ask WHY there is an "ammo dice" mechanic at all? Are we as gamers getting so lazy that we cannot keep track of basic supplies in lieu of a dice mechanic in a game where "resource management" is one of the key features? That seems like some lazy game design to me.

[swaghauler]

Yep, the mechanics were a dealbreaker for me from day one.

Are they using the 3 sets of different D6 dice to represent Attributes, Equipment, and Skills like in the Mutant Year Zero game, OR are they using the "growing dice size mechanic" (where a D6 becomes a D8 or a D10) like in Forbidden Lands game?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I guess I'd have to ask WHY there is an "ammo dice" mechanic at all? Are we as gamers getting so lazy that we cannot keep track of basic supplies in lieu of a dice mechanic in a game where "resource management" is one of the key features? That seems like some lazy game design to me.
In general I have to say "Yes".
It appears that many gamers today do not want to do any book-keeping (or at least, they want it to the bare minimum). Keeping track of consumable supplies like food, water, ammo, fuel, etc. etc. is not something they want to bother with and allegedly, some players have complained that such book-keeping interferes with playing the game!

This came up most recently for me when I was part of Clockwork Publishing's revival of Dark Conspiracy. I provided some optional rules for body armour degradation and was told, in essence, they weren't likely to be needed because players do not want that level of granularity.
Oh the irony...
The fact that a player/GM of that specific game was providing those optional rules was completely lost on them.

That was not the only instance, when it came to the forms used to keep track of ammunition that were provided in 1st & 2nd editions of Dark Conspiracy, we were told that they probably would not be included because the chief designers felt they were not wanted by players. Ammo expenditure should, apparently, be managed by the GM if the GM is concerned about it, (as if the GM doesn't already have enough work to do!)

So "yes" many of todays players are so damned lazy that they expect to do little and still be rewarded for it.

[wolffhound79]

Does anyone else get the feeling this is basically Twilight 2000 LITE. It remind me of a OS D&D board game where you pic the character, add some gear and a vehicle and talk to each other about doing imaginary things until you get killed, horribly disfigured, or just bored of the game and play something else.
It doesnt in my opinion give you a vested interest in playing a long term campaign.

A few of the charts are interesting gives me more ideas for a chart i was working on for scrounging.

Im still trying to figure out the use of artillery in this game mechanics.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Does anyone else get the feeling this is basically Twilight 2000 LITE. It remind me of a OS D&D board game where you pic the character, add some gear and a vehicle and talk to each other about doing imaginary things until you get killed, horribly disfigured, or just bored of the game and play something else.
It doesnt in my opinion give you a vested interest in playing a long term campaign.


Personally, I've found that what you've said applies to every Free League game that I've ever seen.
I've mentioned elsewhere that it appears the people who like the Free League game rules are quite happy with this, they don't seem interested in campaigns at all. They play one Year Zero game until they get bored of it then ship over to another Year Zero game. They get bored with that one then move to the next etc. etc. until they're right back to the first game.

[Rainbow Six]

Does anyone else get the feeling this is basically Twilight 2000 LITE. It remind me of a OS D&D board game where you pic the character, add some gear and a vehicle and talk to each other about doing imaginary things until you get killed, horribly disfigured, or just bored of the game and play something else.
Yep. I think it's becoming pretty evident that we (as in those of us who have been playing T2K for years and appreciate - if not expect - a fair degree of realism) are most definitely not the target market for this game.

[Southernap]

Okay, so looking at the alpha rules on character generation. I have some issues and wonder if anyone else noticed them as well.

If we don't use their 9 archetypes to play the game. Then you have to use the life paths. The rules as written doesn't have a character generation worksheet included to walk through this path, unlike what GDW did for us in V1 and V2.

So here is where I have an issue with the life path method.

1. There is only 4 major nationalities to pick from right now. Swedish, US, Soviet, Polish. There is a reference to a local militia; but that means nothing since the game is set in Poland or Sweden. Where are the Germans, the British, Danes, Czechs, Ukrainians, Latvians, etc. Basically, where is the rest of Europe? Heck at the most why not include the Norwegians, Finns, Danes, Baltic States at a minimum

2. Everything seems to be a D6 role to start with, based on that A-D attribute skill roll. Why not just say, roll a D6 or D12 to get this score? If the little attribute score chart isn't on the Ref's screen. It will be flipping back and forth too much to roll up my character.

3. Why the roll for the childhood on 1D6 well after one has filled out their attributes. That seems particularly silly, since I might have tanked one of my attributes scores that would give a reason for my skills. I am also troubled by the forced taking of skills via dice roll. It works in Traveller rules because you can at least select a broad category to roll in for skills that at least gives you some control. The way FL has written it, you have no control unless the GM allows you to make changes to what skills you want to pick.

4. The entries into the careers. I understand this is alpha and they are fairly generic. Yet, you only get a chance to pick one of 6 skills based on the career choices that I see. In addition it appears they made officer a separate category of career for the military paths. When it should have been pick a military path and if your attributes are B or better all across three of the categories then you can be combat arms and an officer or Special Ops and and Officer. With maybe a pair of 2D6 rolls for skills.
Similarly, their breakdown of the "Intelligence" civilian career field has the career path of "Assassin", which I am sure seems cool; but it also seems very Pulp novelist like. Also, why not have a similar path of "hit man" in the Crime field?
The whole thing for the civilian career paths makes no sense.

5. Aging rules seem overly complex. Why not just say that each term is 4 years like before? So you go from 18 to 22 to 26 to 30 and so on. By saying roll 1D6 for aging. Then roll again against the number of terms that I have completed to figure out if I have lost some attributes. If you do it this way from the start, then you could be figuring attribute loss on a 24 year old PC. I mean I know I probably was starting to lose something at 24, but I didn't feel it when I compared myself to being at mid 30s or even now in my mid 40s. The chart that was standard in V2 (page 24 of that rule book) made it very simple. They then want you if the war doesn't break out to add three years to your age. Seriously.


Aging starts at 18
Then roll a 1D6 to age your character
Then add three years to that current age if war hasn't broke out
Then roll 1D6 and if you roll <current number of terms you lose an attribute score by one step
Then add three to your score.
************************************
So lets play this out. Start at 18. Roll 1D6 and I get a 6.
Now I am 24 years old. Roll 1D6 and get a 3, so no attribute loss
Roll 1D8 to see if war breaks out. Recieve a 2. No war. Add three to my current age.
Second Term starts at 27 (since 24+3 is 27). Roll a 1D6 and I get a 1.
Now I am 28, roll 1D6 again and get a 1. Now I have to lose an attribute? At 26? That makes no sense.

Again this is all being done without a worksheet for character generation like V1 or V2 offered. This should be simplified way down to either 3 year or 4 year terms to make the math simpler. With again the effects of aging starting at either a specific term or a specific age (say like age 34 or term 5)

5. Trying to figure out the hit capacity and stress took me a while. Their example wasn't clear. It appears the rules have you take one of the attribute types die size + another attribute die size. Average them together (say Attribute B and D, which is 10+6=16. Divide by 2 to find the average is 8) then divide that by 2 to get the half of that number (or 2 if I am using the example). Why not make it simple math and say "add attribute scores together and find the quarter of that sum"?

6. The unit morale, moral code and dreams and the other fluff listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Alpha players manual means nothing. Where are the contacts that used to exist? That gave my GM more meat than how I fell into how I ended up playing with these guys or what my big dream was? I mean in one of my games using the old V2.0 rules. We had a player who created a Russian. That joined up with our team while we were in Norway. He wanted to get away from the boomer and the all the other mad Russians, he wanted to get to Montana and marry a fat prairie girl. He happened to have known one of the submarine crew members as a contact from before the war that gave us an in for allow him in, after our GM and this player rolled off some skills with each other. That is the way it should work, besides you should have a little notebook, or at least the GM should, that has the PCs and some of that information so the GM can craft adventures which pull at the motivations of the characters. I can see all manner of things going wrong with this idea of the moral code and unit morale. This isn't DnD where you can have a chaotic evil player near a lawful neutral player and the absolute chaos that comes from them butting heads. This is a game where everyone is together trying to survive and get home or to some form of a home and survive. The boundaries of morals and ethics will be tested by the GM about trying to maintain a shred of civilization and sanity.

Similar the unit morale means what exactly? That can't be initiative since that is a 1D10 card draw (wait why card draw, why not a 1D10 roll???). It is dependent on the highest command skill. What if no one has a higher command skill than 1? Scrub the skills sets none of them offer a "command" skill to start with unless you create an officer or a civilian manager.



At this point, I am just lost with the character generation and it seems as if the rules are forcing the players to use specific archetypes and to have groups setup specifically with certain mandatory roles filled like some computer games mandated you needed to have a thief, tank, cleric, magic user.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

<snip>

6. The unit morale, moral code and dreams and the other fluff listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Alpha players manual means nothing. Where are the contacts that used to exist? That gave my GM more meat than how I fell into how I ended up playing with these guys or what my big dream was?

<snip>

Because a number of the games made these days seem to be about "muh feelings". They give players a lot of opportunity to force their own narrative into the story without any regard to the story the GM is trying to tell. They focus a lot on a character's personal feelings but never seem to give any purpose for this, other than to supply unthinking players with some sort of motivation for playing the game - "If I don't have a Role, how do I know how to play my character?"

[Legbreaker]

Character generation was tacked on towards the end of the writing. Initially it seemed they expected you'd play a pregen archetype. Really, the "life path" system in the alpha is perhaps 2-3 months old, and I'd be very surprised if it's had much (or any) testing.

Same thing with non-US, Soviet or Swedish nationalities. Original draft background mentioned NATO a grand total of 4 times.... The VAST majority of it read as if it were purely a Soviet vs US war with Sweden in the middle and quickly taking the US side.
The rest of Europe was an afterthought.

[Olefin]

I don't like these mechanics. They're derived from the Year Zero rules that Free League uses as the base for all their games (as far as I am aware). They suit episodic, non-campaign style games and I've seen a particular trend among fans of the Year Zero rules that seems to bear this out.
They will play one Year Zero game until they get bored with it and then they'll start up a new game with a different Year Zero game. When they get bored with that one, they ship over to the next Year Zero game until they complete the circle and come back to the first game.

I don't see any longevity in that approach, it seems to me that they are simply playing the game to kill time rather than to follow the journey of their character.
I'd rather play RIFTS with all the problems of its hashed together AD&D mechanics because at least I can expect the game to last more than a few adventures.

I agree with you both on the mechanics of the game and of much of their fan base - too many said great game five minutes after it came out - which shows that they really arent sold on the campaign and character aspects of the game - which is what is needed for actual long term commitment by both the players and GM's - and which will be needed to sustain the game beyond the initial launch - especially if they are depending on fan content to sustain the game with perhaps one "official" release a year or every other year

The rules and mechanics just dont feel right - much prefer V1 or V2.2 to this - its too derivative of their other releases and not really a Twilight 2000 release as to the mechanics

[Olefin]

Character generation was tacked on towards the end of the writing. Initially it seemed they expected you'd play a pregen archetype. Really, the "life path" system in the alpha is perhaps 2-3 months old, and I'd be very surprised if it's had much (or any) testing.

Same thing with non-US, Soviet or Swedish nationalities. Original draft background mentioned NATO a grand total of 4 times.... The VAST majority of it read as if it were purely a Soviet vs US war with Sweden in the middle and quickly taking the US side.
The rest of Europe was an afterthought.

"There is only 4 major nationalities to pick from right now. Swedish, US, Soviet, Polish. There is a reference to a local militia; but that means nothing since the game is set in Poland or Sweden. Where are the Germans, the British, Danes, Czechs, Ukrainians, Latvians, etc. Basically, where is the rest of Europe? Heck at the most why not include the Norwegians, Finns, Danes, Baltic States at a minimum"

You can see that clearly about the rest of Europe as there is not anywhere near the level of information about other countries that was in V1 or V2.2 - even the rank names are missing. And the information about characters from other countries that is in V2.2. is a glaring omission here - hell they could have just lifted that straight from V2.2 without much effort

Its like all the cared about were the Swedes, US, Soviets and Poles. For instance the French fought against the Soviets here in this war as did the Belgians - but there is literally zero information to create French and Belgian characters or about their weapons. And the Dutch are part of the forces that get overrun in Poland as are the Belgians - so there is a very good chance to run into them or generate Belgian and Dutch characters - but no information provided for that.

and there are Germans and Brits also in the forces overrun in Poland - and absolutely zero on how to create German and UK characters - who make up the lions share of the NATO forces that would be fighting against the Soviets

And like I said - that can be done quite easily just by adapting the V2.2. rules - which should be part and parcel of their release and not something that the players and GM's have to jury rig.

[Olefin]

Yep. I think it's becoming pretty evident that we (as in those of us who have been playing T2K for years and appreciate - if not expect - a fair degree of realism) are most definitely not the target market for this game.

That matches up with comments I have seen from Tomas and others - i.e. that this was NOT a release for those of us who have played the game and loved it - this was pretty close to a one shot to add to their list of games - but not something they plan to back as GDW did.

They are depending on fans to write new material for them - and then they basically gave the old fan base the finger with how they wrote the mechanics, character creation, etc.

And how can you have a game that features an invasion of the UK and have almost no information on British characters?

This game needs to be aborted right now, scrapped and re-written from the ground up - keep the artwork and lose all the rest

FYI my ideas of fixes -
Scrap the character creation section and lift it right out of V2.2 including the info on other nations militaries.

Scrap the timeline and war background entirely, fire Chris Lites and find someone other than Frank Frey who hates Republicans and the US Army in general for military background (read their FB and you can see what I mean).

Remove all the political crap and making the Republican president look like a war monger who somehow authorizes all kinds of nuke strikes all by himself. Their is no room in the game for politics of one persuasion or another.

Whoever wrote the Secret handout needs to talk to the Player Manual writer and fix it because Tomas himself thought only the 5th was destroyed but the two releases clearly say that all forces assigned to RESET are overrun and destroyed - which means eight Full Corps just in Poland alone.

Add the weapons and vehicles that the UK, Germans, Dutch, Belgians and French would be using.

Add the ability to created UK, German, etc. characters.

Make the war into an actual world war.

Or just do what needs to be done, fire the writers, keep the artwork, scrap the Alpha and try it again

[mpipes]

Same thing with non-US, Soviet or Swedish nationalities. Original draft background mentioned NATO a grand total of 4 times.... The VAST majority of it read as if it were purely a Soviet vs US war with Sweden in the middle and quickly taking the US side.
The rest of Europe was an afterthought.

Yea, its just way too Sweden centric, and its gone from a world war to just a big regional war that only rages in Sweden and Poland and maybe the Czech Republic (at least till the nukes fly). Not believable in the slightest to ANYONE with a modicum of military knowledge.

I think that is what is bothering me the most; the guys that wrote this stuff have no real knowledge of the military outside a documentary or two. If they go back to the drawing board, they need a military consultant of some type knowledgeable of the Cold War and the respective plans of NATO and the Soviets. This just looks like it was written by some college dweeb that found underwater basket weaving challenging and whose source material came out of the Kremlin. It fairly reeks of, not just anti-American bias, but also anti-NATO bias.:wall::wtf:

[Olefin]

Yea, its just way too Sweden centric, and its gone from a world war to just a big regional war that only rages in Sweden and Poland and maybe the Czech Republic (at least till the nukes fly). Not believable in the slightest to ANYONE with a modicum of military knowledge.

I think that is what is bothering me the most; the guys that wrote this stuff have no real knowledge of the military outside a documentary or two. If they go back to the drawing board, they need a military consultant of some type knowledgeable of the Cold War and the respective plans of NATO and the Soviets. This just looks like it was written by some college dweeb that found underwater basket weaving challenging and whose source material came out of the Kremlin. It fairly reeks of, not just anti-American bias, but also anti-NATO bias.:wall::wtf:

AMEN

Keep the artwork - ditch the rest

[pansarskott]

To be fair, V1 doesn't have that much info on non-US military. Weapons in use by other countries, and languages spoken. A list of Soviet republics. No non-US ranks at all (which V4 has)


V 1 Play Manual:
Players may choose to be Americans or Europeans, at their option. Since all armies practice considerable local recruiting and have picked up deserters from the other side, a U.S. unit could contain virtually any nationality. However, it is recommended that at least half of the unit be American. Europeans, although they are with the group, are not technically in the U.S. Army; the unit is technically under the command of the highest ranking American, despite the ranks of any European characters.


A person from Europe would call earlier versions very USA-centric. It all depends on the perspective. :)

[Olefin]

To be fair, V1 doesn't have that much info on non-US military. Weapons in use by other countries, and languages spoken. A list of Soviet republics. No non-US ranks at all (which V4 has)

V 1 Play Manual:

A person from Europe would call earlier versions very USA-centric. It all depends on the perspective. :)

V1 - NATO sourcebook provides all rank info, weapons, other NATO countries
V2.2. has an entire section in it the details other countries, weapons, ranks, militaries, how to roll up characters etc..

[comped]

Yea, its just way too Sweden centric, and its gone from a world war to just a big regional war that only rages in Sweden and Poland and maybe the Czech Republic (at least till the nukes fly). Not believable in the slightest to ANYONE with a modicum of military knowledge.


FL's market is primarily Swedish-focused, so that's why we have Sweden show-horned in as a setting in the first place. Why it's so focused on the country. Because they have a base of fans which will buy the game because it's got their name on it and they can play in Sweden.

[pansarskott]

V1 - NATO sourcebook provides all rank info, weapons, other NATO countries
V2.2. has an entire section in it the details other countries, weapons, ranks, militaries, how to roll up characters etc..

Yes, in additional modules, not in the base game. The V4 is only the base game, and it has more info on other nationalities than V1 base game.

But I've never heard of a NATO Sourcebook. Only Vehicle Guide / Combat Vehicle guide, and they don't have that info.

RDF Sourcebook (1986) has info on US other than Army) and other countries. But that's two years after the original game.

Correct about V2, I didn't check that. Never got into playing it so I'll always check V1 :)

[Olefin]

Yes, in additional modules, not in the base game. The V4 is only the base game, and it has more info on other nationalities than V1 base game.

But I've never heard of a NATO Sourcebook. Only Vehicle Guide / Combat Vehicle guide, and they don't have that info.

RDF Sourcebook (1986) has info on US other than Army) and other countries. But that's two years after the original game.

Correct about V2, I didn't check that. Never got into playing it so I'll always check V1 :)

V1 NATO Vehicle Guide was published in 1989 so yes it was a few years after the original players guide for V1 - RDF had full info for the UK and French but you are right not for everyone

Still its a glaring error in the Alpha - and they were sold the rights to the game - thus they could have just copied literally the V2.2 section for the Alpha and said we will detail them out better in the official release - there is literally nothing in the Alpha about them

again this is a Swedish/Polish centric game - and the US info is lacking a lot - would have been very easy to detail what states had seceded from the US (how much effort does it take to type a list of States)

[Olefin]

FL's market is primarily Swedish-focused, so that's why we have Sweden show-horned in as a setting in the first place. Why it's so focused on the country. Because they have a base of fans which will buy the game because it's got their name on it and they can play in Sweden.

Supposedly they were long term players - if that is true then they knew that this is not a Euro centered games

V1 has modules/sourcebooks that take place in Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Korea, United States, Mexico, UK, Grenada, Spain, Italy, Greece, Libya, Romania, Norway - and Challenge releases for adventures in Canada plus info on the Mexican Army

V2.2 adds Thailand and East Africa/Liberia to the list and at least one Challenge article set in Japan

Its very obvious that they either didnt study the original releases at all or ignored the fact that this is a world war

and all it would take is about a five minute look at the member base here to see how international the fan base is

So writing a T2K V4 for Sweden is frankly DUMB

[mpipes]

So writing a T2K V4 for Sweden is frankly DUMB

Yea. Just how many copies do they plan to sell in Sweden versus the rest of the world. And this won't sell to anyone here I am afraid.

Its supposed to be a WORLD WAR!!! Is that a hard concept for them to understand, because according to this backstory, it is a pure Central Europe tussle. Or is Sweden suppose to be the predominant center of the universe in their version?

[Olefin]

I still dont get how they ignored the UK fan base with no UK characters or ways to create them - the Secret Handout has a whole UK Corps in the final offensive - so the chances of running into a UK player is very high

Plus since there are US troops fighting the Soviets in the UK it would make sense that at least some people would want to play a campaign in the UK - but then nothing offered to do so - this isnt V1 or V2.2 where the UK is an interesting place to visit if you are a US character - they were a big part of what stopped the "Soviet Sea Lion"

[Rainbow Six]

this isnt V1 or V2.2 where the UK is an interesting place to visit if you are a US character
V1's treatment of the UK was terrible. You know how you feel about V4? That's pretty much how I feel about the UK in V1 canon. I remember the crushing sense of disappointment that I felt when I bought the Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom (in the Virgin Megastore on Princes Street in Edinburgh) and rushed home to read it. That was undoubtedly my worst T2K experience, far worse than anything V3 or (to date) V4 has produced. If you think that the UK was an interesting place to visit in V1 we'll need to agree to disagree.

As for V2 / 2.2 the only references I'm aware of are those in the Big Yellow Book.

[Olefin]

V1's treatment of the UK was terrible. You know how you feel about V4? That's pretty much how I feel about the UK in V1 canon. I remember the crushing sense of disappointment that I felt when I bought the Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom (in the Virgin Megastore on Princes Street in Edinburgh) and rushed home to read it. That was undoubtedly my worst T2K experience, far worse than anything V3 or (to date) V4 has produced. If you think that the UK was an interesting place to visit in V1 we'll need to agree to disagree.

As for V2 / 2.2 the only references I'm aware of are those in the Big Yellow Book.

V2.2. had complete information in the players guide on making a British Military character for the Army, Navy, etc.. which is a big step up from the Alpha - V1 once the RDF was released did give good information on running a UK military character

And yes I completely agree with you on the UK survivors guide - what has been produced since then by people like you was FAR superior

But at the least V1 and V2.2. had good information on the UK - so far I am not seeing that here

[comped]

Yea. Just how many copies do they plan to sell in Sweden versus the rest of the world. And this won't sell to anyone here I am afraid.

Its supposed to be a WORLD WAR!!! Is that a hard concept for them to understand, because according to this backstory, it is a pure Central Europe tussle. Or is Sweden suppose to be the predominant center of the universe in their version?

Probably more than a few I suspect, but not as many as they hope world-wide.

[Southernap]

Because a number of the games made these days seem to be about "muh feelings". They give players a lot of opportunity to force their own narrative into the story without any regard to the story the GM is trying to tell. They focus a lot on a character's personal feelings but never seem to give any purpose for this, other than to supply unthinking players with some sort of motivation for playing the game - "If I don't have a Role, how do I know how to play my character?"

I mean having some ideas on what your character is supposed to do, feel, or act can open up some interesting options for the GM and the players. I know I have been reading some GM prep books and even seen some "How to" videos on youtube about how to get a better experience in RPGs. That losing yourself into a good background or even work on building that background while playing can open up all manner of wonderful narrative options. Still, making it forced on turn 0 is silly and stupid in my honest opinion. Rather, and I have experienced this on the table, the ability to present a situation to the players and have a PC drop hints that the situation isn't healthy for them.

Allows for the GM or even the PC to get more out of the role playing experience. Heck, I have had some GMs express to me (and other PCs at the table) that we need to forget about our real lives and think about these characters that we are building right now. Give them some life otherwise it is a boring time around the table and almost mechanical feeling of stepping through the rules, but not really enjoying the game.

[Legbreaker]

Or just do what needs to be done, fire the writers, keep the artwork, scrap the Alpha and try it again

Not going to happen. Tomas is one of those writers, and in fact probably 95% responsible for the entire background. It was after all he who I watched in real time doing all the edits.

[Olefin]

Not going to happen. Tomas is one of those writers, and in fact probably 95% responsible for the entire background. It was after all he who I watched in real time doing all the edits.

Well then the V4 is truly screwed - FYI he seemed unaware of the last line on page 148 of the Players Manual showing every division associated with Reset was overrun and destroyed - but not sure if that was malarkey

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It seems to me that looking for supplies in the Free League reboot seems a bit too difficult.
If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.
The implication is that if others want to do so at the same time, then they need to wander off to another hex so that the characters end up about 10 klicks apart from each other - a profoundly stupid idea when you have hostile forces potentially in the vicinity.

Upon a success, you find one ration of food and I think you can only score up to two success. Living off the land seems to be so damned difficult I can't imagine anyone with real experience of being in the wilderness would find this game satisfying or enjoyable

I didn't really like the Year Zero rules to begin with and if anything, the rules they are hashing together for their reboot of T2k reinforces my bias against Year Zero rules.

[Legbreaker]

If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....
Right....
Sounds a little low even for somewhere like the central Sahara or inland Antarctica.

[Olefin]

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....
Right....
Sounds a little low even for somewhere like the central Sahara or inland Antarctica.

Either Tomas and his guys have never foraged or hunted before or the game/wild berrries/etc. situation in the game is a hell of a lot worse than anything I have ever heard of - thats a hell of a lot of territory for such a little gain

[Raellus]

Maybe the scarcity is that areas near human habitations have been repeatedly picked over by scavengers, military and civilian. By 2000, anything within a few clicks of a settlement of any size would have been picked over real good. You'd have to be really skillful or lucky to find useable supplies, forage, or game.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I could agree if it was specifically stated that settlements and other obvious attractive targets for scavenging were mentioned but the rule appears to apply for every hex regardless of what is found in that hex.
From the talk I see on the Free League forum, the rule seems to be heavily influenced by one of their earlier games. However there appears to be some agreement that the rule works for the earlier game but seems overly harsh for a T2k setting.

[Legbreaker]

"Overly harsh"?
Hmm, seems like you're being too kind to them.

Even in populated areas there's still going to be plenty to find - overgrown and forgotten vegetable gardens, rabbits, rats, pigeons, and a host of other options we may turn our noses up to in better times.
And that doesn't even account for caches of canned or bottled food tucked away in odd places.

[kato13]

So in an area of 86.6 square kilometres, only one person can forage, hunt or whatever, and can find a max of 2 man-days of food.....


Ok a math nut chime in here.

I have walked 70 miles (112km) in 20 hours (flat paved terrain). I'm gonna say that is near human max to allow for scanning for food (I know super endurance people would laugh at that number but they move too fast to forage). Assuming I could see 50 m in each direction (and spot a mushroom at that distance) and not allowing for ANY time for forage or hunt, that allows me to "cover" 11,200,000 meters.

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily

[Legbreaker]

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily

Yup, you're seeing the problem. That particular rule, if it's being reported accurately, is insanely bad. There are entire farms feeding many people that are less than 1% of the size of an FL hex. Even taking into account the possibility nobody is actively growing food or raising livestock anywhere in that area, there's no possible way 86 square Km couldn't feed an absolute host of people, except as I mentioned previously, in some very extreme circumstances.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ok a math nut chime in here.

I have walked 70 miles (112km) in 20 hours (flat paved terrain). I'm gonna say that is near human max to allow for scanning for food (I know super endurance people would laugh at that number but they move too fast to forage). Assuming I could see 50 m in each direction (and spot a mushroom at that distance) and not allowing for ANY time for forage or hunt, that allows me to "cover" 11,200,000 meters.

86.6 Square Kilometers = 86,600,000 square meters so even with insanely exaggerated numbers it would take a minimum of 8 people to just scan the terrain, cursorily
That gives a very good perspective on the situation. I am left to wonder if Free League have done their thing simply for gameplay purposes without any deeper considerations taken into account.
I know from my own experience that when foraging for mushrooms and berries in the Australian bushland, we had multiple people pick over one spot because there was always the chance that one person spots something the first person missed.
And we weren't spreading out over a 10 kilometre area to do so, we probably foraged an area no more than a few kilometres for half a morning or thereabouts (so in game terms say, roughly one to two 4 hour periods).

And the Australian bushland does not have the amount of wild food freely growing that you could expect in Europe but we still left sites without finding all the wild food that was there. How do I know? Because other people would go to the same site the next day and come back with the foodstuffs we missed.

[Legbreaker]

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?
Yeah, I don't think so either.

[Raellus]

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?

That actually makes a lot of sense. Hasn't FL described their approach to T2k as a "hex crawl"? I have a sense of what a hex crawl is, but I'm not sure I really grasp the concept, or see an obvious connection to traditional T2k RPG'ing. Hopefully, someone here can explain it to me.

-

[pansarskott]

Maybe it's intentional? A badly thought out mechanic to keep PCs on the move?


That would fit in with the rules for encounters when players ares stationary. Those rules are ambiguous when it comes to spotting (implies automatic discovery of PCs), and encounters get more severe as time passes.

[Southernap]

That would fit in with the rules for encounters when players ares stationary. Those rules are ambiguous when it comes to spotting (implies automatic discovery of PCs), and encounters get more severe as time passes.

Reading the part about stationary players, seems like they are forcing the players to keep move all under the assumption that there are enough Russians and hostile Polish troopers to round up all the fleeing NATO troops.

The risk of being stationary seems directly opposite of what is supposed to happen when you need to brew up a still of alcohol fuel. Since if you have a small still you can only produce 5 liters of fuel per shift. While a larger still can produce a 50/liters a shift. Or fight hunger or find that part to fix the vehicle you have.

With a Hummer taking 95 liters of fuel, an M113 taking 360 liters, a couple of the Swedes vehicles taking 80-100 liters. Taking a quick look at the vehicle stats.

So the way they have the rules written, you move. Roll an encounter, set a watch, brew up fuel, forage for the next movement to the next hex and run out of fuel again, repeat steps 1 through 4. Oh and you have to have a body that can watch the still as well. So there is less than two PCs out of your team that need to stay by the base camp.

Makes no sense. Then combine that with the rules that rest does a body good to heal from wounds and stress. Means your watch you set might as well be the most broken PC in the team at the moment. With the still operator as the 2nd most broke team member. While all the more able body folks run through foraging, fishing, hunting, whatever per a shift.

Unless I am misreading these rules or misunderstanding the intent here. Seems like the idea is forcing the PCs to be on the move almost constantly and that someone in the group will always have stress on their person.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This is very much the impression I am getting from the alpha rules (for what it's worth, I have the same understanding of the rules as you do).
I'm finding it a tad difficult to figure out what the actual point of the game is, if its design is to keep you moving for "reasons".

Reading the part about stationary players, seems like they are forcing the players to keep move all under the assumption that there are enough Russians and hostile Polish troopers to round up all the fleeing NATO troops.

The risk of being stationary seems directly opposite of what is supposed to happen when you need to brew up a still of alcohol fuel. Since if you have a small still you can only produce 5 liters of fuel per shift. While a larger still can produce a 50/liters a shift. Or fight hunger or find that part to fix the vehicle you have.

With a Hummer taking 95 liters of fuel, an M113 taking 360 liters, a couple of the Swedes vehicles taking 80-100 liters. Taking a quick look at the vehicle stats.

So the way they have the rules written, you move. Roll an encounter, set a watch, brew up fuel, forage for the next movement to the next hex and run out of fuel again, repeat steps 1 through 4. Oh and you have to have a body that can watch the still as well. So there is less than two PCs out of your team that need to stay by the base camp.

Makes no sense. Then combine that with the rules that rest does a body good to heal from wounds and stress. Means your watch you set might as well be the most broken PC in the team at the moment. With the still operator as the 2nd most broke team member. While all the more able body folks run through foraging, fishing, hunting, whatever per a shift.

Unless I am misreading these rules or misunderstanding the intent here. Seems like the idea is forcing the PCs to be on the move almost constantly and that someone in the group will always have stress on their person.

[Legbreaker]

If that's the intention then it makes staying put and trying to hole up impossible. Firstly their rules mean you WILL starve before long and secondly, with the encounters ramping up, you WILL be killed.
The ramping encounters also lends weight to the "uber soviets" complaint most of us have.

Has anyone found anything that actually WORKS with these mechanics?

[Tegyrius]

I've been tinkering with some solo play (which, for me, is really more of writing prompts). The v2.2 encounter tables and travel rules, combined with Jed McClure's hex overlays of the original boxed set maps (http://www.jedmc.com/ixdd/2014/1/8/an-old-school-polish-sandbox.html), seem to work fairly well for sandbox gaming. What you guys are describing sounds like it's more story- than simulation-focused, and leaning very hard toward survival RPG play.

- C.

[pansarskott]

Some stationary encounters issues:
* Increased severity of encounter for longer stays . (stationary encounters table).

detection rules:
Allow the PCs a RECON roll to spot the scouts (opposed roll). If spotted, the scouts might attack, retreat, or negotiate, depending on their goals.
* Automatic discovery of the PCs and the enemy know when the PCs have detected them?

* Some parts implies automatic detection of PCs, other parts says RECON is necessary to spot a hidden camp.

[Black Vulmea]

First time poster, so be gentle . . .

If we don't use their 9 archetypes to play the game. Then you have to use the life paths. The rules as written doesn't have a character generation worksheet included to walk through this path, unlike what GDW did for us in V1 and V2.
The Alpha rules provide a step-by-step description for creating characters sing the life-path on page 31, and a step-by-step example of creating a character on page 39.

1. There is only 4 major nationalities to pick from right now.
T2K v1 PH didn't even have that: it detailed US Army soldiers, said you could play a foreign soldier attached to an American unit, but that Americans were in charge, no matter what.

2. Everything seems to be a D6 role to start with, based on that A-D attribute skill roll. Why not just say, roll a D6 or D12 to get this score? If the little attribute score chart isn't on the Ref's screen. It will be flipping back and forth too much to roll up my character.
I'm not clear on what you're saying, to be honest. Could you give an example?

3. Why the roll for the childhood on 1D6 well after one has filled out their attributes. That seems particularly silly, since I might have tanked one of my attributes scores that would give a reason for my skills. I am also troubled by the forced taking of skills via dice roll.
That's a fair point, but it's also part-and-parcel of random character generation, and even if the specialty you roll doesn't play to your character's strengths, it significantly improves on their weaknesses, frex, making a success five or six on d6, improving your character's chance of success from 16% to 33%

That said, while I personally prefer random character generation, if I'm the referee I'd strongly consider just letting players choose their specialties if they prefer. Optimized characters don't bother me much.

4. . . . Yet, you only get a chance to pick one of 6 skills based on the career choices that I see.
It sounds like you may be confusing skills and specialties. Can you cite a page number?

In addition it appears they made officer a separate category of career for the military paths. When it should have been pick a military path and if your attributes are B or better all across three of the categories then you can be combat arms and an officer or Special Ops and and Officer. With maybe a pair of 2D6 rolls for skills.
An officer does pick a branch as well: "OFFICERS must qualify for both the Officer career path and for the functional area in which they want to serve. They also get to choose which of the two columns to use for each career bonus" (page 32).

Similarly, their breakdown of the "Intelligence" civilian career field has the career path of "Assassin", which I am sure seems cool; but it also seems very Pulp novelist like. Also, why not have a similar path of "hit man" in the Crime field?
The whole thing for the civilian career paths makes no sense.
It allows players to opt for different skill sets before getting swept up as draftees once the war starts. That's not really my personal cuppa - I prefer the familiar T2K conceit of a band of brothers and sisters in arms - but they're trying to make a dollar and cent here, and if increasing the diversity of character options helps their bottom line, then they'd be fools not to do it. I seriously doubt their business plan was 'sell a copy to everyone who played this game since the Eighties.'

5. Aging rules seem overly complex. Why not just say that each term is 4 years like before? So you go from 18 to 22 to 26 to 30 and so on. By saying roll 1D6 for aging. Then roll again against the number of terms that I have completed to figure out if I have lost some attributes. If you do it this way from the start, then you could be figuring attribute loss on a 24 year old PC. I mean I know I probably was starting to lose something at 24, but I didn't feel it when I compared myself to being at mid 30s or even now in my mid 40s.
I took that to represent the possibility of an injury, abandoning a workout plan, &c, but that said, I'm not wild about it either and would house rule this if it stays in the final version.

They then want you if the war doesn't break out to add three years to your age. Seriously.


Aging starts at 18
Then roll a 1D6 to age your character
Then add three years to that current age if war hasn't broke out
Then roll 1D6 and if you roll <current number of terms you lose an attribute score by one step
Then add three to your score.
************************************
So lets play this out. Start at 18. Roll 1D6 and I get a 6.
Now I am 24 years old. Roll 1D6 and get a 3, so no attribute loss
Roll 1D8 to see if war breaks out. Recieve a 2. No war. Add three to my current age.
Second Term starts at 27 (since 24+3 is 27). Roll a 1D6 and I get a 1.
Now I am 28, roll 1D6 again and get a 1. Now I have to lose an attribute? At 26? That makes no sense.

That's incorrect - you roll d6 for the length of the term in years, and once the war breaks out, your final term is three years without rolling, so that everyone's life path concludes with the same three years, syncing up the characters. It's not 1d6+3 every term.

5. Trying to figure out the hit capacity and stress took me a while. Their example wasn't clear. It appears the rules have you take one of the attribute types die size + another attribute die size. Average them together (say Attribute B and D, which is 10+6=16. Divide by 2 to find the average is 8) then divide that by 2 to get the half of that number (or 2 if I am using the example). Why not make it simple math and say "add attribute scores together and find the quarter of that sum"?
Agreed - the wording is wonky; that said, telling people to divide by one-quarter doesn't really improve on that, in my opinion.

6. The unit morale, moral code and dreams and the other fluff listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Alpha players manual means nothing. Where are the contacts that used to exist?
Contacts are v2, yes? My own experience is limited to v1, and I don't recall that.

The Moral Code, Big Dream, and Buddy rules seem to follow tagging Aspects in FATE. That's literally the only thing I like about FATE, so I'm curious to see how they work in v4.

This is a game where everyone is together trying to survive and get home or to some form of a home and survive. The boundaries of morals and ethics will be tested by the GM about trying to maintain a shred of civilization and sanity.
Well said.

Similar the unit morale means what exactly?It can give you another die to roll to avoid Stress and remain Cool Under Fire.

So, last night I created a character using the life path rules, and I can walk you through the steps.

Character is an American with Coolness Under Fire D (d6). Starting attributes are Strength B, Agility C, Intelligence B, and Empathy B; I don't favor or slight any of the attributes, which would allow me to increase an attribute to A at the cost of dropping another attribute to D - a nice call out to v1 there.

The Alpha rules suggest a referee can allow the player to choose his childhood, but since I don't really have a character concept in mind yet, I'll roll: Working Class. I can choose from Brawling, Stamina, and Tech as my starting skills; I take Stamina and get the Load Carrier specialty - that's a lucky confluence of skill and specialty, and speaks to the idea that characters should get to choose their specialty to match their skill, or roll for the specialty first, before choosing the skill to take or improve. A possible house rule there.

His first term will be spent getting an Education - I think I'm going to go for officer here. He meets both minimums, for Liberal Arts and Sciences, and I elect to Sciences, getting Recon D and Tech D. I have to make skill roll to earn a specialty, which is d6 and d10 to roll a six for success, and I miss on both dice - no specialty. I roll for term length duration and get a 4, and add four years to the character's age. Since I can't roll under a 1 (1st term), there's no risk of losing an attribute level yet. At the end of the 1st term, my guy looks like this.

My Guy, Age 22
Strength B (d10) - Stamina D (d6)
Agility C (d8)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10)
Specialties: Load Carrier
CUF D (d6)

Second term is military service and he's qualified to be an officer, so he commissioned as 2LT; with four years in Education, maybe he's ROTC? or USMA? He's eligible for three of the four branches - needs AGL B for Special Forces, so that's closed to him - and opts for Combat Arms; I thinking cavalry if he gets the Tanker specialty. I'm required to take Ranged Combat D and choose Stamina C - two of the six specialties are gunners, so he's gotta be ready to hump a load. I roll a skill check against Stamina - because his Stamina improved, I roll d6 and d10 and get my six this time, gaining the specialty Combat Engineering. As my fellow pirate Captain Jack Sparrow says, that's very interesting. Blowing shit up is cool. Because I passed the skill check, he also gets promoted to 1LT and his CUF goes up to C. I roll for term length, get a one. This time I roll for both aging and the start of the war; neither die comes up a one, so on to term three. At the end of two terms, here 's where he is.

1LT My Guy, Age 23
Strength B (d10) - Stamina C (d8)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering
CUF C (d8)

Third term I can choose two skills, and this time I take Command D from the officer skill list and Stamina B. I roll another skill check against Stamina, this time with d10 and d10, easily beating six on both dice and d10, picking up another Combat Arms specialty, Tanker; that actually works well with being a combat engineer, because it also covers bulldozers. My Guy's taking shape! Because he made his skill check, he is promoted to CPT and his CUF is now B. a d6 says two years pass,, and I roll again for attribute loss and war; he doesn't lose an level, but the war d8 comes up 1 - it's on! As he ships out for Europe, here's how he looks.

CPT My Guy, Age 25
Strength B (d10) - Stamina B (d10)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech D (d6)
Empathy B (d10) - Command D (d6)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering, Tanker
CUF B (d10)

CPT My Guy is now At War; he can increase two skills by one level each - he goes Command C and Tech C - and gets an At War specialty automatically: Improvised Munitions. I hoped for NBC or Ranger, but IM tells me a lot about how he spent his time in combat.

Now it's time to give him a name and fill in some of his other blanks.

CPT Tomas 'Tom' Andrej Ruzicka, USMA '94, Age 28
Strength B (d10) - Stamina B (d10)
Agility C (d8) - Ranged Combat D (d6)
Intelligence B (d10) - Recon D (d6), Tech C (d8)
Empathy B (d10) - Command C (d8)
Specialties: Load Carrier, Combat Engineering, Tanker, Improvised Munitions
CUF B (d10)

Appearance: blond crew cut, grey-eyed, rock-jawed
Moral Code: Duty, Honor, Country
Big Dream: We all get out of this alive
Buddy and How You Met the Group : TBD

Born in Kewaunee, WI, moved to Green Bay at age 6. Attended Xavier HS in Appleton, living with an aunt. Father's family is Czech; mother's family Norwegian and German. Dad's a roofer, and Tom helped out during the summers, humping bundles of tar sheets and plywood. Solid grades; lettered in football and basketball, inside linebacker and small forward respectively - not the most talented, but coaches respected his toughness. Accepted to USMA, played football, deep on the depth chart; only made the travel team twice, but once was against Navy so it was all worth it. BS, Civil Engineering; AOC 12B, Combat Engineer, CO, 'B' Company, 7th Engineer Battalion, 5th ID (Mech) - served as battalion XO in Poland for six days, battalion CO for about three hours . . .

He needs a nickname.

My first impression is v4 characters tend to be less capable overall than their v1 peers, but that may be deceiving; I think I'll try re-creating this character in v1 to see the differences.

[Targan]

First time poster, so be gentle . . .

Are you one of the creators of the new edition?

[Black Vulmea]

Are you one of the creators of the new edition?
I backed the Kickstarter - does that count?

No, I've never tried my hand at designing a game, beyond house ruling other people's games.

[pmulcahy11b]

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe? That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered?

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

[Rockwolf66]

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe? That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered?

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

That sounds about right. The behavior of FL makes it worse. Some of us who had seen the pre-Alpha stuff complained but were ignored. I've been playing TW2K for 20 years and I want new stuff. Alas what i have seen is not TW2K.

As far as the foraging rules go I wish I could drop the FL people out in the woods and let them find out how easy it is to eat well in the woods. Mind you I am all of three generations away from Subsistence poachers.

[TyCaine]

I've been on this forum a while, I just don't post a lot, and I've been a fan of Twilight 2000 for a long, long time. Wow, actually... Longer than I thought... LOL

Anyway... Am I happy there's a new version? Definitely... But not so much for the version itself I hate to say, but more for the renewal of interest in the concept. More for the fact that with interest comes the possibility of new sourcebooks that could be revamped and refactored and slipped into my own version of the game. More for the fact that additional fluff could add color to my own T2K universe, or new rules could be retconned into my version.

My version, by the way, the game I play, is v2.2 with a whole bunch of mods and rules and such all carefully crafted and added into the game to make things...well...mine... mine and my players...

The Year Zero engine just feels....lack luster to me... I'm not sure how else to explain it, and although I happily grabbed the alpha and dug through it, I'm just not....happy with it. Will there be a market for it? I'm sure. I guess I'm either too set in my ways, or too much of an old grognard to appreciate it, either way, it is what it is.

I'm sure there will be people who will like it, and for that I'm glad there's an audience... And I'll admit I'm looking forward to new material, new ideas, new possibilities...but I'm not going to be moving to the new version any time soon... Thankfully most of my players are very much of the same opinion so will more than likely be happy to stay as is for a while, though I do have one who's less long in the tooth and is already a player of at least one YZ game but I believe understands us old folks...

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and thanks for letting me air them!
I'll go back to my semi-lurking for now... :)

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

That's my take.

You're right on the money with all that.

[Legbreaker]

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

My thoughts are FL's game will be regarded much like T2013 - a variant and not core. It may be discussed from time to time, but certainly won't be a significant part of the conversation.

Time may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

[Tegyrius]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a familiar (but not identical) post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline. "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was," indeed.

- C.

[wolffhound79]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1

[TyCaine]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline.

I somewhat agree, but I feel Leg had the right thought that v4 will be, essentially, a variant...

I essentially agree with Paul as well that I for one will very much be looking to 'mine' v4 for my own game of v2.2

Like I said I'm happy at the prospect of new interest and new support, I just don't see it being of 'use' to me except as potential to be mined for my own game.

~Ty

[Tegyrius]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take?

That shouldn't be an issue if they do, in fact, have a licensing contract for the property from Marc Miller/Far Future Enterprises. Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, I believe they do have a legitimate license. Otherwise they'd be in trouble just for attempting to profit from the Twilight: 2000 trademark.

- C.

[TyCaine]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1
Huh.... That's an interesting take, I hadn't thought about it that way...

Of course, doesn't change my view of the YZ engine, but makes sense from the background perspective.

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity.

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

[Tegyrius]

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

In retrospect, perhaps. 1e was published in 1984, so it had a 12-year offset between publication and the beginning of the war, with the start of play being 16 years in the future. We had our first major setting design meeting in June 2006; at the time, I believe (memory hazy, it's been a while) we were targeting a 2008 release. Keeping the original timeline, we might have been better served by making it Twilight: 2025 or 2030.

The challenge in any non-Cold War timeline, of course, is generating a plausible WWIII with widespread nuclear devastation but without the Cold War's preconditions for such an occurrence. An immediate post-WWIII setting is Twilight: 2000's defining trait, which sets it well apart from almost every other post-apoc RPG on the market.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

Based on 2013's reception, I find it pretty clear that the core of the fan base will violently reject any setting that doesn't let them play in the aftermath of the Cold War in which they grew up and/or served. I think you have to keep that year if you're calling it Twilight: 2000. If you modernize the setting, you have to call it a spiritual successor rather than a new edition. That leaves a future 5e with an intensively-researched Cold War setting (or one vague enough that there aren't details over which the piranhas can swarm) coupled to modernized rules.

- C.

[TyCaine]

I actually have two 'flavors' of T2K running at the moment.

One is the more standard timeline (nipped and tucked here and there, but essentially v2.2 with some more classic flavor).

The other is actually Twilight 2019, an update so that things are a little more modern (at a request from a couple of my younger players) where there's little details like having smart phones and tablets (no network for the most part, just useful for whatever is on the device) as well as a few other less obvious details, different vehicles (like the JLTV) and so on.

My group are happy with either, and I've found the 2019 setting seems to fit better for M2K.

My point being, as obtuse as it might have been, is that a v5 to me could be either an update or a classic interpretation, I wouldn't mind either, as long as the implementation of it 'spoke' to me.

For those more hard line enthusiasts though I think a v5 with a thoroughly investigated and cogitated classic Cold War timeline would be best, with, perhaps, a modern update being something more of a 'setting' supplement later...

~Ty

[Raellus]

To help keep discussion in this thread focused on the OP topic (v4 rules), I've created a separate thread for "v5" and alternate versions of T2k.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=86096#post86096

-

[mpipes]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

No. FL apparently licensed the copyright from whoever now owns the copyrights to the GDW game (FFE). The copyright owner possesses all of the rights that the writers had in their work. The writers gave up/assigned those rights to GDW years ago, which of course inured to the present copyright owner.

However, you are sorta correct. Given just how dramatic the Alpha version departs from the original - from the backstory to the mechanics - I wonder why they even bothered to get a license - it really is that much of a change. Alpha certainly does not match up with the fully compatible "continuation" that I understood FL advertised. :confused:

[Legbreaker]

I wonder why they even bothered to get a license...

They bought the name and product recognition I think. Not like they kept much else. Paid for the goodwill associated with the title as a marketing boost for their product.

That's my theory anyway.

[3catcircus]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a familiar (but not identical) post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline. "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was," indeed.

- C.

So, I'm new here, but have been enjoying the game all the way back to v1 (withoutv ever having had the opportunity to consistently play...)

I love 2013's mechanics with v2.2's timeline. Adjust the prerequisites for the 2013 life paths to make it easier to realistically gain some of them, and expand them in line with v2.2's quantity of life paths (or Paul Mulcahy's or Mitch Berg's expansions) and I'd be happy.

I've even tried adopting 2013's core mechanics to D&D...

I would be happy to try v4 - except I've seen Tales from the Loop and Year Zero mechanics in action. Not a fan. Not a fan of them at all. I'll probably buy a pdf version of v4, for completeness only. The system just doesn't feel like it'll work well to support the flavor and atmosphere intended.

I just can't see what are essentially one-shot mechanics sustaining a sandbox campaign. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

[Black Vulmea]

They bought the name and product recognition I think. . . . Paid for the goodwill associated with the title as a marketing boost for their product.
I can relate. That's how I feel about Mongoose's version of Traveller.

The good news was, all of my original, 'classic' Traveller books still worked just like new the day after the Mongeese shipped their edition. 'My game' didn't go anywhere.

I don't believe Fria Ligan's motives are suspect: they wanted to create an edition of T2K using their house system as the base, and they were pretty clear about that from the start. There's a legit argument to be made about taking a less-grognard oriented approach to the game in order to find a new audience. Sucks to be on the grognard-positive side of that decision, though. I wasn't involved in the playtest, so I can only imagine the additional frustration that brings.

Good news is, I pulled out my v1 box set last night; still works, just like new.

[3catcircus]

I can relate. That's how I feel about Mongoose's version of Traveller.

The good news was, all of my original, 'classic' Traveller books still worked just like new the day after the Mongeese shipped their edition. 'My game' didn't go anywhere.

I don't believe Fria Ligan's motives are suspect: they wanted to create an edition of T2K using their house system as the base, and they were pretty clear about that from the start. There's a legit argument to be made about taking a less-grognard oriented approach to the game in order to find a new audience. Sucks to be on the grognard-positive side of that decision, though. I wasn't involved in the playtest, so I can only imagine the additional frustration that brings.

Good news is, I pulled out my v1 box set last night; still works, just like new.

The question becomes whether or not they appeal to both old and new players.

Older players are loyalists who want something that is nostalgic and maybe plays a little quicker. Current generations of potential players are probably more fickle, having access to more options, with greater ease of access.

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

I'm not a fan of the mechanics. I'm probably not going to be a fan of the timeline and backstory.

If they can produce beautiful and functional maps, I'll probably continue buying their products and marry them with 2013's mechanics and v2.2's timeline.

[Tegyrius]

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

[Benjamin]

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

Agreed. I really like Free League and I own Aliens, Coriolis, and Tales From the Loop. They make gorgeous games but they very much seem to be campaign driven and not setting builders when it comes to source books. I was excited when a new version of T2K was announced but also wary. It does now appear that they bought the rights just for name recognition and just wanted to put out another post-apocalyptic RPG. This is a bit odd since they already have Mutant Year Zero and the sequel to Tales From the Loop, Things From the Flood.

In fact given how dark the setting is I contend that Free League could have easily put out a mini-supplement to accompany Things From the Flood. Call it something like Of Missiles and Machines and have it be a optional set of rules for a post-war Tales From the Loop setting. Three chapters in length it could have had a Cold War gone hot in the eighties scenario, a post-Cold War collapse with regional wars and economic meltdown and then finally extra rules to survive in the post-war/collapse setting. Easy and efficient, tying into a setting they already have established while not messing up T2K.

That’s just my idea, and I wish they had done that instead of mangling T2K.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've even tried adopting 2013's core mechanics to D&D...



I actually ran a short campaign under a v1/AD&D rules mix in the Against the Giants books. The PCs basically bombarded the Hill Giant's Fort with mortars into a mess and they never into the dungeon underneath because they couldn't find the entrances after bombarding the fort. There weren't many monsters left to fight either.

The PCs started out well in the Ice Giant Rift, but after lots of automatic weapons fire, grenades and rockets, the PCs ran out of ammo and got wiped out in the melee that happened after that...that's why it was a short campaign. But my friends and I had a lot of fun.

[3catcircus]

I actually ran a short campaign under a v1/AD&D rules mix in the Against the Giants books. The PCs basically bombarded the Hill Giant's Fort with mortars into a mess and they never into the dungeon underneath because they couldn't find the entrances after bombarding the fort. There weren't many monsters left to fight either.

The PCs started out well in the Ice Giant Rift, but after lots of automatic weapons fire, grenades and rockets, the PCs ran out of ammo and got wiped out in the melee that happened after that...that's why it was a short campaign. But my friends and I had a lot of fun.

I wasn't using firearms in D&D. Rather, the "x skill points = y number of dice" rolling against a TN set by a controlling attribute lends itself to D&D 3.x which also uses skill ranks and controlling attributes. I converted BAB to a skill with bonuses based on class and used Armor as DR.

It worked well, but my players couldn't get over the idea of not having ever increasing hit points...

[3catcircus]

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

1. How much Swedish content is produced initially vs. later on in the sales year.

2. Feedback from players (regardless of language) - old school guys will have no problems with crunchy rules, so long as they make sense and can reasonably model the intended real world thing they are trying to model. Newer guys seem to want something that is "fun" - even if the mechanics are a terrible representation of reality.

3. Whether or not the timeline and backstory are sustainable. We all know we're fickle when it comes to this, arguing v1 vs v2 vs v2.2 vs v3 vs alternates. How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it" or will it be universally panned by old school guys regardless of our nationality?

[pansarskott]

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it"

At least you won't realise the weirdness of some of the things in there. Like fighting between US and Sweden. And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

[Legbreaker]

And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

[pansarskott]

I agree, there's absolutely no reason to bring it in there in the first place.

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it


That's actually one thing they got right. The ship has 'only' 12,5 m draft (wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier)) which should be enough (although I didn't check depth for the whole route. And FL probably didn't either). sea chart over where it's anchored (https://pasjon.eniro.se/rutter#map=13.98/59.32219/18.08348). Zoom out and try to figure out how to get there :confused:

[mpipes]

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

It is just silly. Which makes one wonder exactly what "military consultants" did they use? No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea. Now, it is OK to go against military orthodoxy to make a good story, but that needs to be set up in a realistic manner, such as supporting a MEU performing amphibious ops. However, as written a US nuclear carrier in the Baltic is ridiculous. The fact that there are other things that are just as ridiculous tells you just how amateurish FL's efforts truly are in coming up with a believable background. As much as I cringe over elements of T2K's GDW written background, overall it makes enough sense to be believable. FL's effort wildly misses that mark on both the background and the mechanics. While the mechanics have sorta simplistic, "beer and pretzel" feel to them, I find them horribly unintuitive and clunky. V1 and V2.2 frankly look like elegant genius in comparison to me. The best I can say about FL's Alpha is that it gives me a far better appreciation at just how good GDW's game mechanics were.

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.

[pansarskott]

And with all that US airpower (and anti-aircraft missiles from ships!) in the Baltic Sea, the Soviets still manage to do airborne landings north of Stockholm.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.

It seems they didn't have many. There is one American who was listed as a military consultant and he apparently spent time in the US Army (I seem to recall something about being Airborne or something) however he was low rank and it seems very obvious that he has no understanding of military logistics.
Couple that with the fact that the lead designer from Free League did actually serve in the Swedish military as a conscript but it seems he was in intelligence or another support service rather than a combat arm. And again, he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to military logistics.

[Legbreaker]

It's only rumour the lead was even a conscript. I can't find any indication they had ANY military experience beyond working as a journalist in the west bank area.
Guess how all their articles (that I could find) are written....

[mpipes]

How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

Just think of the glee of all those Tu-22M Backfire crews!!! A US supercarrier in the Baltic all by its lonesome!! :behead: FL might as well have put a Typhoon boomer into the Great Lakes!!! SHUDDER!!!

[pansarskott]

Panorama pic (https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3218995,18.0751182,3a,75y,53.83h,86.95t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOldCLRVF6Ez19vPwyU32NVXY 3R3h6ECBhlgbGv!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleu sercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOldCLRVF6Ez19vPwyU32NVX Y3R3h6ECBhlgbGv%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya313.55518-ro-0-fo100!7i8192!8i4096) of where USS Harry S. Truman is supposed to be anchored. The sailing ship to the left is 70 m long (water line) 500 meters away and the cruise ship to the right is probably about 200 m long.


But it would be cool in Mutant. A bit like the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes, or the crashed Star Destroyers in the recent Star Wars movies. But in a game that's supposed to be based in reality? Not so cool.

[Legbreaker]

...and as mentioned, EASILY within range of all sorts of man portable weapons.
Only place I can think of that would be worse, is a Pact harbour.

[Lurken]

...and as mentioned, EASILY within range of all sorts of man portable weapons.
Only place I can think of that would be worse, is a Pact harbour.

Yet, to FLs credit, atleast they stated that Stockholm is held by a a mixed force of Swedes and Americans. But how the hell were they able to slow the Soviets down, being cut off and beong close to Soviet airfields, while UK rolled over and died?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately the more exposure I get to FL's reboot of T2k, the more I think they are doing a number of things because they think it would be "cool" in a game.
That panorama view of Stockholm harbour linked by pansarskott shows the utter unbelievability of having the Harry S. Truman in those waters. Only the captain of the Costa Concordia would think it's a good idea to get so close to shore, and we know how that went...

[pansarskott]

Close to shore? I'll show you close to shore! :D

Oxdjupet (pics) (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oxdjupet&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images&pn=1)is a narrow strait in the sea lane (https://pasjon.eniro.se/#map=14/59.39872/18.44143)into Stockholm. There's a 19th century fortress there.
The ferries/cruise lines to Åland and Finland pass though it everyday. The ship in the pic is 28 meter wide (probably max width, lenght 171 m). A Nimitz-class carrier is 40 m wide at the water line, 77 m wide max. 317 m long at WL.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. BqdUbs3kuTkPFTeKAa9uYwHaFV%26pid%3DApi&f=1

[Legbreaker]

The more I look at it, the more utterly insane it is for any military captain to even consider sailing through the approaches to Stockholm, let alone anchor close to the city.
We're talking upwards of 100km of sailing, almost every single step of it within range of shoulder fired AT weaponry!
And I'm not even talking very sophisticated, modern systems either, RPG-7's and the like!
Imagine what you could do with a couple of 105 tank guns or the like, or a small battery of 81mm mortars and delayed fuses.
It's total and utter MADNESS!!!

4552

[pansarskott]

On the upper left side of that map, just east of the road, is Arlanda airport. Sweden's largest airport. You can see it as a pale splotch. Or use Google maps.

A large airborne force parachutes north of Stockholm, and Arlanda airport quickly falls to Soviet control.

It's not unreasonable to assume that the roro-harbour Kapellskär (east of Norrtälje in upper right, where the road ends ) is under Soviet control


Soviet naval ships enter the Stockholm archipelago, where they face both Swedish and American vessels in combat.

The Swedish navy have ships that have been built for littoral combat. I don't think the ships in a carrier group are suited for that. The map give you an idea of the water/land ratio in the archipelago.


There is a sea lane that goes 'straight' east, north of "Värmdö NV' on the map. It still has to pass the Oxdjupet strait.

[Raellus]

This discussion has veered away from v4 rules and mechanics. Here's a thread already dedicated to Sweden in T2k.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=86256#post86256

-

[raketenjagdpanzer]

"No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea."

This is getting to 2013's level of stupid, with their "French nuclear subs sailing up the Rhine to get close enough to nuke Russian" horse shit.

[Raellus]

Please tone it down. At least one person who worked on 2013 is an active member here and, who knows, someone involved with v4 could be lurking too. We can not like things without resorting insults and name-calling.

Also, this thread is for rules and mechanics discussion. I'll unlock the v4 thread for general discussion, but if there's insults and name-calling again over there, it'll go back into lockdown.

-

[Black Vulmea]

My first impression is v4 characters tend to be less capable overall than their v1 peers, but that may be deceiving; I think I'll try re-creating this character in v1 to see the differences.
Okay, so I didn't get a chance to finish this yet, but I was able to look at one thing which I was very curious about, the comparison between starting skill ability in v1 and v4.

1LT Ruzicka - the v1 version of the character didn't make CPT - gets CBE80 and CVE80, so how does that compare to v4 CPT Ruzicka for performing these tasks?

First, combat engineering: 1LT Ruzicka, with CBE80, is 80% likely to succeed on an AVG skill check. CPT Ruzicka, with Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) has only a 69% chance of succeeding on a routine skill check, but he gets a bump for having the Combat Engineering specialty - his Tech die increases from d8 to d10, upping his chance to 75%. 1LT Ruzicka, the v1 character, is slightly better at setting a demolition charge in a non-combat situation, say, then CPT Ruzicka, the v4 character, making them roughly comparable. However, CPT Ruzicka can, if he fails the roll, push the results, giving him another chance to succeed at the risk of taking on Stress; pushing the roll gets him to 94% chance of success, significantly better than 1LT Ruzicka, with a potential cost.

Second, civil engineering. 1LT Ruzicka, with CVE80, again succeeds 80% of the time on an AVG task; CPT Ruzicka's Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) tap out at 69%, and he lacks a specialty to bump it up - there's a Builder specialty which isn't defined in the Alpha rules, something for the FL team to fix, but I'm guessing this is where it would apply, if the CPT had it. The edge here goes to 1LT Ruzicka, unless CPT Ruzicka pushes his roll, which increases his chance to 90%, again with a potential increase in Stress.

More generally, CPT Ruzicka appears more versatile; Tech in v4 applies pretty broadly, covering the equivalent of everything from ELC to NWH to SCR; this is where I hung up with 1LT Ruzicka, trying to allocate points widely enough to make him comparable to the CPT.

So, digging in the numbers just a little bit, it appears at first blush that v1 and v4 characters are both pretty good at what they do, with some important differences. On a cursory read, I didn't expect the v4 character to be as capable as the v1 character, but I have to rethink that now, at least until I get a chance to playtest them side-by-side.

[3catcircus]

Okay, so I didn't get a chance to finish this yet, but I was able to look at one thing which I was very curious about, the comparison between starting skill ability in v1 and v4.

1LT Ruzicka - the v1 version of the character didn't make CPT - gets CBE80 and CVE80, so how does that compare to v4 CPT Ruzicka for performing these tasks?

First, combat engineering: 1LT Ruzicka, with CBE80, is 80% likely to succeed on an AVG skill check. CPT Ruzicka, with Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) has only a 69% chance of succeeding on a routine skill check, but he gets a bump for having the Combat Engineering specialty - his Tech die increases from d8 to d10, upping his chance to 75%. 1LT Ruzicka, the v1 character, is slightly better at setting a demolition charge in a non-combat situation, say, then CPT Ruzicka, the v4 character, making them roughly comparable. However, CPT Ruzicka can, if he fails the roll, push the results, giving him another chance to succeed at the risk of taking on Stress; pushing the roll gets him to 94% chance of success, significantly better than 1LT Ruzicka, with a potential cost.

Second, civil engineering. 1LT Ruzicka, with CVE80, again succeeds 80% of the time on an AVG task; CPT Ruzicka's Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) tap out at 69%, and he lacks a specialty to bump it up - there's a Builder specialty which isn't defined in the Alpha rules, something for the FL team to fix, but I'm guessing this is where it would apply, if the CPT had it. The edge here goes to 1LT Ruzicka, unless CPT Ruzicka pushes his roll, which increases his chance to 90%, again with a potential increase in Stress.

More generally, CPT Ruzicka appears more versatile; Tech in v4 applies pretty broadly, covering the equivalent of everything from ELC to NWH to SCR; this is where I hung up with 1LT Ruzicka, trying to allocate points widely enough to make him comparable to the CPT.

So, digging in the numbers just a little bit, it appears at first blush that v1 and v4 characters are both pretty good at what they do, with some important differences. On a cursory read, I didn't expect the v4 character to be as capable as the v1 character, but I have to rethink that now, at least until I get a chance to playtest them side-by-side.

Ignoring the purely mechanical aspects, *shouldn't* a captain be at least as capable as a 1LT? Is there the ability to choose what capabilities you have in v4, to reflect a hard-charger 1LT vs. an incompetent CPT who got their ticket punched?

[Black Vulmea]

Is there the ability to choose what capabilities you have in v4, to reflect a hard-charger 1LT vs. an incompetent CPT who got their ticket punched?
To choose them? No, not as far as I can tell.

However, the random length of terms can reflect this: my v4 character made CPT in three years, over two terms, but two terms can last anywhere from 2-12 years, meaning Tom Ruzicka could be CPT at 24 or at 34! That's too much variability for me - depending on the final published rules, I may damp terms down to 2-4 (d3+1) or 2-5 (d4+1) years.

[pmulcahy11b]

Ignoring the purely mechanical aspects, *shouldn't* a captain be at least as capable as a 1LT?

Based on my military experience, that idea fails distressingly often.

[3catcircus]

Based on my military experience, that idea fails distressingly often.
Same here...

CO: "So, why are you getting out? What if you get a job you don't like?"

Me: "I have a job I don't like now. At least when I'm out, if it turns out I'm working for an idiot, I have the option of finding a new job..."

[3catcircus]

To choose them? No, not as far as I can tell.

However, the random length of terms can reflect this: my v4 character made CPT in three years, over two terms, but two terms can last anywhere from 2-12 years, meaning Tom Ruzicka could be CPT at 24 or at 34! That's too much variability for me - depending on the final published rules, I may damp terms down to 2-4 (d3+1) or 2-5 (d4+1) years.

Which is difficult to plan out. Typical officer promotions are 2 years between O-1 and O-2 and between O-2 and O-3, and then it varies. Typically it's like 4-5 years to go to O-4 and O-5 and 7 yesrs to go to O-6 - at least in the US.

But it depends upon competitiveness and year group and lots of other things.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Promotion to higher rank is handled quite differently in a number of other nations. For example, in many British Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations, promotion is subject to positions being available. You may qualify for promotion, you may even attend to the courses to train you for that new rank and you may even end up taking on the responsibilities of that new rank but unless there is a vacancy you will not get promoted.
Alternately, if there are many vacancies within a unit, they will sometimes push their own troops to take the promotion courses so that one of their own gets to fill the vacancy rather than bringing in a new person unfamiliar with the unit.

You could very well have Captains who are qualified for promotion to Major and work for several years as de facto Majors but are not given the rank because their are no slots available in their unit.
I specifically choose that example because the OC of my last Army Reserve unit fell into exactly that situation. As a Reserve unit, the number of personnel in the unit depends on how many people in the area are interested in joining the Reserves and unfortunately for him, the numbers declined over the years so the unit went from being an under-strength Company to an over-strength Platoon.
While he was qualified to be promoted to Major and he was expected by higher command to do the work of a Major, the unit was not large enough to justify having a Major in command.

Perhaps the Free League system is some sort of attempt to replicate that

[Targan]

Perhaps the Free League system is some sort of attempt to replicate that

A commendably generous suggestion ;)

[3catcircus]

Promotion to higher rank is handled quite differently in a number of other nations. For example, in many British Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations, promotion is subject to positions being available. You may qualify for promotion, you may even attend to the courses to train you for that new rank and you may even end up taking on the responsibilities of that new rank but unless there is a vacancy you will not get promoted.
Alternately, if there are many vacancies within a unit, they will sometimes push their own troops to take the promotion courses so that one of their own gets to fill the vacancy rather than bringing in a new person unfamiliar with the unit.

You could very well have Captains who are qualified for promotion to Major and work for several years as de facto Majors but are not given the rank because their are no slots available in their unit.
I specifically choose that example because the OC of my last Army Reserve unit fell into exactly that situation. As a Reserve unit, the number of personnel in the unit depends on how many people in the area are interested in joining the Reserves and unfortunately for him, the numbers declined over the years so the unit went from being an under-strength Company to an over-strength Platoon.
While he was qualified to be promoted to Major and he was expected by higher command to do the work of a Major, the unit was not large enough to justify having a Major in command.

Perhaps the Free League system is some sort of attempt to replicate that

Yep - I'm familiar with Australia's military - specifically how in many cases everyone who is in a particular type of career track within the military may number in the single or low double digits and know each other. I especially like (at least in Navy), one can give two weeks' notice and leave for a different career. In the US, officers have a minimum obligation (and enlisted is one step removed from modern-day slavery).

I wonder if the v4 mechanics will support this type of situation - including forced conscription?

[Rainbow Six]

Yep - I'm familiar with Australia's military - specifically how in many cases everyone who is in a particular type of career track within the military may number in the single or low double digits and know each other. I especially like (at least in Navy), one can give two weeks' notice and leave for a different career. In the US, officers have a minimum obligation (and enlisted is one step removed from modern-day slavery).

I wonder if the v4 mechanics will support this type of situation - including forced conscription?
The life path career generation factors in conscription without specifying 'forced' (I mean, you could argue that any conscription is forced inasmuch as it doesn't give the choice but I don't know if you mean something more extreme?)

THE DRAFT: If your final term before war breaks out was spent as a civilian, and if your character is not a local of the country where your game is set, your At War term will be spent as a draftee or volunteer in the military.
It does give a degree of flexibility inasmuch as if you are playing a character who is a local of the country where your game is set you don't have to choose a military option for your At War Term (although presumably you can).

I haven't looked it up (I can't quickly lay my hands on my 2013 book) but it reminds me of the way the Last Year worked in that version.

I don't think it's explicitly stated in any of the Archetypes - you'd probably just have to choose a semi appropriate one (Gunner, Grunt, maybe Mechanic) and expand on it via your backstory, but that's narrative rather than mechanical.

WRT changing career, again I think Life Path will accommodate that mechanically, although if you use rules as written minimum term lengths will apply. So essentially your minimum time obligation is 1d6 (i.e. whatever you roll for that term. So you could spend a year as a military officer or six years dependent on what you roll). I suppose that's much the same as V2.2 and 2013, only the term lengths were fixed. (It's been years since I created a PC using v1 rules but from memory there was no game mechanic to cover how long you spent in a specific career field, it was narrative).

V4 Archetypes are again going to be down to what you decide as a backstory (I may have missed this, but I don't think the narratives even give a mechanical option - i.e. dice roll - to determine the character's age. It's entirely up to you.)

[Legbreaker]

Australian officers also have a minimum commitment of (going from memory) the time spend training plus that again.
Enlisted also have a commitment, most commonly 4 years.

[Rainbow Six]

I think the minimum obligation in the British Army is also four years for enlisted. For officers is similar (might be three). IIRC rightly officers can join on a short service commission (minimum commitment) then switch to a longer term contract once they're in. There are get out opportunities for all ranks during training but once your training is complete you're committed.

IIRC the maximum term for enlisted in the British Army is usually 22 years. To carry on beyond that I think you need to get promoted to either Warrant Officer or Late Entry Officer (a scheme that promotes long serving NCO's to Commissioned Officers at the end of their enlisted service).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Australian officers also have a minimum commitment of (going from memory) the time spend training plus that again.
Enlisted also have a commitment, most commonly 4 years.
We did have open-ended enlistment for a while but if I remember it was as a direct result of needing to increase manpower for the War on Terror.
Open-ended enlistment meant you could serve for even just one year and then quit, it was seen by the government as making military service more attractive. That plus they tried the direct entry into special forces bit, probably hoping to catch some lads enamoured with SAS.

Obviously it was not as good as the government thought, enlistment periods are now similar to what they were in the 1980s-90s - usually three to six years depending on role and position (for example, Infantry officers sign up for six years initial service after completion of training). However once you've served your Initial Minimum Period of Service and if you choose to sign on again, you are essentially on open-ended enlistment with the only requirement being advance notice of desire to resign (for example, with officers it's usually three-months notice of resigning).

[Adm.Lee]

Not mine, but from the "Twilight:2000 solo" blog https://twilight2000solo.blogspot.com/2020/12/0121-great-escape-part-ix-heading-home.html

"House Rule - Successes and ammo usage: When you roll more than one success in ranged combat, each additional success after the first can be used to reduce the amount of ammunition expended. For each success sacrificed, the amount expended can be reduced by half (round down, minimum of 1). Successes used in this manner cannot be used to cause critical hits. All successes may be used, regardless of source (Ability, Skill or Ammo die)."

As yet, I have not played the v4 rules yet, only read them lightly and much commentary here and on FB. I am aware that ammo usage is a point of contention. It seems to me that the designers' intent is that "you keep pulling the trigger until the target falls down or is lost somehow", which rubs a lot of players the wrong way. Some part of that resistance is a loss of player agency, as it strips away the player's control over how many shots to fire.

The above sounds like a compromise-- character skill and luck contribute to keeping down ammo usage. It does seem heavily reliant on luck, though.

Thoughts?

[3catcircus]

Not mine, but from the "Twilight:2000 solo" blog https://twilight2000solo.blogspot.com/2020/12/0121-great-escape-part-ix-heading-home.html

"House Rule - Successes and ammo usage: When you roll more than one success in ranged combat, each additional success after the first can be used to reduce the amount of ammunition expended. For each success sacrificed, the amount expended can be reduced by half (round down, minimum of 1). Successes used in this manner cannot be used to cause critical hits. All successes may be used, regardless of source (Ability, Skill or Ammo die)."

As yet, I have not played the v4 rules yet, only read them lightly and much commentary here and on FB. I am aware that ammo usage is a point of contention. It seems to me that the designers' intent is that "you keep pulling the trigger until the target falls down or is lost somehow", which rubs a lot of players the wrong way. Some part of that resistance is a loss of player agency, as it strips away the player's control over how many shots to fire.

The above sounds like a compromise-- character skill and luck contribute to keeping down ammo usage. It does seem heavily reliant on luck, though.

Thoughts?

Seems rather gamist. One can have trigger discipline and still miss. The decision to pull the trigger x number of times to send y number of rounds downrange has nothing to do with luck. Whether firing one bullet from a revolver, a burst from an M4, or holding the trigger on an M2HB for 3 seconds - they're all conscious decisions whose end results don't change the amount of ammo expended - only whether or not they're hits or misses.

[swaghauler]

Not mine, but from the "Twilight:2000 solo" blog https://twilight2000solo.blogspot.com/2020/12/0121-great-escape-part-ix-heading-home.html

"House Rule - Successes and ammo usage: When you roll more than one success in ranged combat, each additional success after the first can be used to reduce the amount of ammunition expended. For each success sacrificed, the amount expended can be reduced by half (round down, minimum of 1). Successes used in this manner cannot be used to cause critical hits. All successes may be used, regardless of source (Ability, Skill or Ammo die)."

As yet, I have not played the v4 rules yet, only read them lightly and much commentary here and on FB. I am aware that ammo usage is a point of contention. It seems to me that the designers' intent is that "you keep pulling the trigger until the target falls down or is lost somehow", which rubs a lot of players the wrong way. Some part of that resistance is a loss of player agency, as it strips away the player's control over how many shots to fire.

The above sounds like a compromise-- character skill and luck contribute to keeping down ammo usage. It does seem heavily reliant on luck, though.

Thoughts?

I'd play it where you record and track each round you fire. The AMMO DIE is obviously taking care of burst fire but for a semi-automatic or pump/lever gun, I might allow the character to "push" any failed ammo dice for rolling a success. Each "pushed" die would then roll for additional rounds of ammo expended and I would reduce THOSE ROUNDS ROLLED by the number of successes.

[swaghauler]

It seems to me that looking for supplies in the Free League reboot seems a bit too difficult.
If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.
The implication is that if others want to do so at the same time, then they need to wander off to another hex so that the characters end up about 10 klicks apart from each other - a profoundly stupid idea when you have hostile forces potentially in the vicinity.

Upon a success, you find one ration of food and I think you can only score up to two success. Living off the land seems to be so damned difficult I can't imagine anyone with real experience of being in the wilderness would find this game satisfying or enjoyable

I didn't really like the Year Zero rules to begin with and if anything, the rules they are hashing together for their reboot of T2k reinforces my bias against Year Zero rules.

This sounds like a direct lift from MUTANT:YEAR ZERO. The nearly universal houserule is to reset the hex size from 10Km to 1Km and drop the success limits. I still have issues with MUTANT... BUT I haven't played it yet. Still, it's close enough to SHADOWRUN that it all looks familiar to me (as a dice pool system).

[Raellus]

Received an e-mail informing backers that the Beta has been delayed to continue revising background and rules. I choose to look at this as a positive development.

-

[Legbreaker]

Meanwhile, there has been zero observable work done on the documents since the kickstarter.
Now tell me they're working hard on producing a good product and have listened to feedback.

[Raellus]

Now tell me they're working hard on producing a good product and have listened to feedback.

I can't tell you what I don't know. Do you know something that the rest of us do not?

Meanwhile, there has been zero observable work done on the documents since the kickstarter.

What is the above comment in reference to? AFAIK, no one outside the project team is able to view changes to the alpha as they are made. It's not a Google Doc.

-

[Legbreaker]

It's not a Google Doc.
-

Yes, it is actually and a handful of people can see it.

[Tegyrius]

Did that handful of people sign nondisclosure agreements? If so, those people might want to review their NDAs to ensure they aren’t violating them by discussing the status of the development and revision process without authorization from the line developer.

- C.

[Raellus]

Yes, it is actually and a handful of people can see it.

I suppose it's possible that the dev's are lying to the backers, and that no significant work has been or is being done on the project.

Is it not more likely that one of the current/active dev's simply made a copy of the Google Doc and shared it with only other current/active dev's (who presumably abide by NDA's), and that you are no longer privy to the work?

-

[Legbreaker]

Did that handful of people sign nondisclosure agreements? If so, those people might want to review their NDAs to ensure they aren’t violating them by discussing the status of the development and revision process without authorization from the line developer.

I wrote it. I know exactly what it says and what my limitations are. I assure you and everyone else, I am not breaching it.

I suppose it's possible that the dev's are lying to the backers, and that no significant work has been or is being done on the project.

Is it not more likely that one of the current/active dev's simply made a copy of the Google Doc and shared it with only other current/active dev's (who presumably abide by NDA's), and that you are no longer privy to the work?

I am not the only one seeing exactly the same thing.
Or is that not seeing?
Time will tell of course, but thus far, it appears nothing has happened. Meanwhile FL has obtained another title and has commenced work on it. They're not a big company so I'm not sure how much attention they can be putting on two different titles at the same time....

[Olefin]

Has anyone talked to Frank Frey to see how far along he is on the V4 Madonna? That might be a window in what is going on with the 4th edition that has nothing to do with what is or isnt going on with the Beta. Plus a new version of the Madonna sounds great to me

[mpipes]

After they put out that utterly non-sensical and illogical Alpha reveal, I have little faith. I think a half wit 7th grade wargamer - like me in the day - could have done better. It was comically bad in my opinion and indicates an unprofessional and biased mind set - not to mention anti-semantic - that marks the entire project as hopelessly tainted and inevitably doomed.

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO. And really, DOES ANYONE think any NATO/Euro-Soviet war would EVER center on neutral Sweden!!!

[Legbreaker]

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO.

Not going to happen. It's the company's CEO who wrote it.

[mpipes]

Not going to happen. It's the company's CEO who wrote it.

Alas, I am aware. That was meant more as a resigned acceptance that it was something that should happen but won't. Hope someone likes going broke on what I would think was a major investment intended to take the company to the next level.

But hey, if you are that clueless as to what you are drafting, maybe you deserve whatever comes back at you. Just disappointing considering IMHO what they said was coming compared to what showed up.

[Olefin]

Alas, I am aware. That was meant more as a resigned acceptance that it was something that should happen but won't. Hope someone likes going broke on what I would think was a major investment intended to take the company to the next level.

But hey, if you are that clueless as to what you are drafting, maybe you deserve whatever comes back at you. Just disappointing considering IMHO what they said was coming compared to what showed up.

I agree completely with you - it’s why I asked for my money back

[kcdusk]

Apologies for being off topic. But this thread got me looking at Modern War by Zozer games. Any comments from people that have it/used it?

[comped]

After they put out that utterly non-sensical and illogical Alpha reveal, I have little faith. I think a half wit 7th grade wargamer - like me in the day - could have done better. It was comically bad in my opinion and indicates an unprofessional and biased mind set - not to mention anti-semantic - that marks the entire project as hopelessly tainted and inevitably doomed.

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO. And really, DOES ANYONE think any NATO/Euro-Soviet war would EVER center on neutral Sweden!!!
They got Sweden so heavily involved because FL's primary market is Sweden.
Without their involvement, there would be very little sales, compared to their other products.

[Olefin]

Twilight 2000 has global appeal - the V4 ignores that completely - the rest of the world is an afterthought - and the audience they need to write for and make the game make sense for needs to be a lot less Sweden-centric or it will fail. If all they wanted to write for was Sweden then why not release an actual Scandinavian Sourcebook for the current V1 or V2.2 and be able to do the job right and not attempting to world build for a V4 and having the obvious issues that they are having.

FYI that was exactly what Marc was wanting me to do by the way - try to take the existing Scandinavian Sourcebook that had been released so long ago and try to scrub it and release it in something that would be useable - the problem is the translation problems alone would be massive - let alone the fact that it basically took a lot of the canon and threw it to the winds - and I have this little thing called real life and 55 hour a week job that kept getting in the way

[Ramjam]

I am really worried that this project will be a huge let down. I've read the rules and the timeline and have to say I hate them.

Guess its back to v2 again

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So the beta has dropped and while they have removed some of the farcical and/or utterly stupid elements of the background (the Soviet invasion of the UK for example), there haven't been many changes in regards to rules and mechanics. If you're familiar with Year Zero rules, all of this is familiar ground and some of it feels very much borrowed directly from Mutant Year Zero

All in all, I am still left with the impression that FL's reboot is not for T2k fans or even people interested in a gritty post-war survival game. It's for Year Zero rules fans and is actually pretty light on for survival aspects. For example, it is mentioned in the beta that the Referee should not bother tracking ammo and food usage for NPCs. In other games, if you have too many NPCs and too little food, then the Players have to start making some hard decisions about who to keep and who to let go. These decisions can involve some hard ethical and moral questions and can add some real depth to the gameplay.
It appears that in-depth gameplay is not being pursued by this reboot.

[Legbreaker]

And while they've removed the utterly stupid Sealionski, they've replaced that with an extra cruiser group in the Baltic as target practice for the Pact.
The background is terrible and the rules, as SSC stated, not designed for a post apoc game, and certainly not for campaign play.

[Lurken]

There are some issues I have in the rules. While they have spruced up the timeline, like the POTUS no longer nukes USSR because USSR didn't nuke Israel after Israel nuked the arabs. Though the Cruiser Jacinto have been in the Baltics for quite some time, the timing is worse. Now they start the invasion of Sweden while they are already in combat with the Soviet Baltic Fleet based in Kaliningrad. And that doesn't solve the issue of them attack the Soviet Fleet at their home port while it could just be ignored and bottled up.

Anyways, regarding NPC rules. For their food and water; "Don't track ammo or food for an NPC who tags along with the PCs - instead keep the freedom to decide when their resources run out, for maximum dramatic effect."

So, no matter how well the players act and plan, the GMs are encouraged to fuck the players over.

And regarding players who decide to let their PC go out alone for scrounging/hunting/scouting/whatever: "Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage. Putting a PC on the spot will test the loyalty of the others - what are they willing to risk to save their friend."

Basically, maximum chaos for maximum drama. The last one is basically bullying, instead of letting the die decide as in v1 and v2.

[Legbreaker]

"Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage.

So basically punish severely anyone who takes the initiative and doesn't do what groupthink says they should. :mad:

[pmulcahy11b]

As I've stated in the past (and severely shortened here) V4 looks and smalls like crap. If it's not too expensive (I do have some money to play with starting next month, as I made the last payment on my house this month), I'll buy v4 just to see if anything is salvageable for real T2K and its relatives (V1/2/2.2/Cadillacs and Dinosaurs/Merc 2000/Dark Conspiracy), but otherwise, I already have a bad taste in my mouth and the thought of v4 again and my lunch put it there.

[pmulcahy11b]

As a side note, what do you think that the v4 designers think would happen if you ran a real unit in combat the way they recommend?

[unipus]

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

[Raellus]

It's unfortunate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I've been disappointed by the tenor of much of the discussion here re v4.

My greatest fear is that this relentless negativity, much of it pretty mean-spirited, is going to chase off new members whose gateway to this amazing legacy game and its rich history happens to be v4.

-

[Legbreaker]

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

No. There's not.
They've changed some cosmetic issues, but the core problems are still there and in some cases the changes they've done have made things even worse.

[3catcircus]

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

The problem I see is that the system isn't suitable for a sandbox or a linear campaign. For a one-shot hex-crawl, it's fine.

[unipus]

... what a strange take. Where'd you get that idea? Large parts of the rules are explicitly for campaign and especially sandbox play.

If anything, that's pretty much Free League's whole legacy as far as games go.

[3catcircus]

I am really worried that this project will be a huge let down. I've read the rules and the timeline and have to say I hate them.

Guess its back to v2 again

I dunno. I'm currently in the process of taking the T:2013 core and all the associated supplements I have and creating a revised all-encompasing document that incorporates the errata and captures all the shooter guides. So far the only challenge had been the unofficial survivors guide to the Czech republic because of it's format, so I'm leaving that out.

I really find myself liking these rules even better than v2 more and more. The mechanics feel like they better simulate reality and the shock and bleeding aspects in the damage model are nice. It's unfortunate that the layout of the chapters is not ideal, because you can tell it was a labor of love to develop.

The v1 rules are beer-n-pretzel. V2/2.2 feel complete, and T:2013 also complete - I like the dice pool mechanics better than a d10/d20. V4 just feels too gamist rather than simulationist.

[unipus]

Ah. That makes sense then. I agree that V4 is not super simulationist -- but at this point I truly, absolutely don't want simulationism from a tabletop roleplaying game. After many years, I find it more often than not simply tends to get in the way of the actual roleplaying and would rather have stronger narrative tools. Simulationism always breaks down at some point anyway... case in point, I've found v4 generates pretty plausible combats where movement and suppression are key to success!

Granted, v4 is also not really what I'd call a narrativist game, and frankly trying to work on that issue bothers me a lot more than fuddy & fiddly tactical details which I think it gets more than close enough most of the time.

If I want simulations, I have a library full of computer games these days. Computers are good at that!

But hey, different strokes.

[3catcircus]

Ah. That makes sense then. I agree that V4 is not super simulationist -- but at this point I truly, absolutely don't want simulationism from a tabletop roleplaying game. After many years, I find it more often than not simply tends to get in the way of the actual roleplaying and would rather have stronger narrative tools. Simulationism always breaks down at some point anyway... case in point, I've found v4 generates pretty plausible combats where movement and suppression are key to success!

Granted, v4 is also not really what I'd call a narrativist game, and frankly trying to work on that issue bothers me a lot more than fuddy & fiddly tactical details which I think it gets more than close enough most of the time.

If I want simulations, I have a library full of computer games these days. Computers are good at that!

But hey, different strokes.

I don't need Phoenix Command levels of simulation, but the model should support that a .45 that hits center of mass should put someone down. I can deal with suspension of disbelief in D&D because not many people really understand what a sword wound can actually due (or that death was probably due to infection), but it's easy to look up gunshot wound effects...

[swaghauler]

Anyways, regarding NPC rules. For their food and water; "Don't track ammo or food for an NPC who tags along with the PCs - instead keep the freedom to decide when their resources run out, for maximum dramatic effect."

So, no matter how well the players act and plan, the GMs are encouraged to fuck the players over.

And regarding players who decide to let their PC go out alone for scrounging/hunting/scouting/whatever: "Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage. Putting a PC on the spot will test the loyalty of the others - what are they willing to risk to save their friend."

Basically, maximum chaos for maximum drama. The last one is basically bullying, instead of letting the die decide as in v1 and v2.

As a gamemaster with 42 YEARS of experience with every system from D20 roll over, to D20 roll under, to 2D6, 3D6, percentile, dice pool, and even odd systems like the FATE system, I have to say that this is the WORST advice I have ever seen given by a game developer!

One of the basic tenents of being a GM is that you are the Story's Narrator, the Character's source of "perception" of the world they inhabit, and the source of all of their challenges. What you are NOT... is their OPPONENT! You, along with the PCs, are engaged in telling a collaborative story that is unfolding in a fairly consistent way because of the rules of the game. This is the reason so many games actually use encounter tables or have mechanics like Initiative and Morale. They are there to remove the feeling that the players are in opposition to the GM because it is a dice roll result, NOT THE GM that creates that potentially fatal challenge for the PCs. Anything that might make the players feel like they are playing against the GM should be taboo. For a game to actually suggest that a GM use encounters to create conflict within a group by singling out weak or lone characters or NPCs IS going to create an "us versus the GM" dynamic. This often doesn't end well.

For me, the best games have been "sandbox" style games where the players and I have created a story that NONE of us expected would happen. The way I do this is to use the dice as a "narrative tool."

For instance, in combat, I have my players throw ALL of their dice for To Hit, Location, and Damage TOGETHER and I then "narrate" the result of that combined roll. An example might be that Joe hits his target in the right leg for 17 out of 20 possible damage with an M4 (remember I use 1D10 for rifle damage). I would narrate that as "your shot goes low, striking the charging insurgent in the right leg above the knee. He screams out and stumbles, slowing in his movement and grabbing for his leg."
An example of narrating a miss might be "the bullet hits the dirt by his right foot, blowing up a large clump of dirt (because of the high damage roll) and causing him to shift to his left, but he keeps on charging towards you." A really near miss (rolling 1 over) might have me narrating the PC shooting a hole in the insurgent's cargo pocket (again because of the high damage) as he charges the PC. The end result is my players always know that it was the DICE who screwed them, not ME the GM.

[swaghauler]

I don't need Phoenix Command levels of simulation, but the model should support that a .45 that hits center of mass should put someone down. I can deal with suspension of disbelief in D&D because not many people really understand what a sword wound can actually due (or that death was probably due to infection), but it's easy to look up gunshot wound effects...

That is why the backstory is SO IMPORTANT to many of the forum members. VERY Implausible results can break one's "suspension of disbelief" and this echoes throughout the game. It's the same in other mediums too. Why did the Red Dawn reboot fail? It was simply too hard to suspend the disbelief that North Korea could actually conquer any part of the US. In the original Red Dawn, It was easier to believe that NATO fell apart while the Soviet Union organized SEVERAL South American countries to assist its own invasion of the mainland US. Then, throughout the movie, the Russians are always saying "things are paralyzed at the Front" which was easier for the viewer to accept. This SMALL part of America was occupied, but everywhere else we were still fighting. In the reboot, they even say "you are conquered" which only broke the suspension of disbelief that much more.

The Story matters. That is why Tales From The Loop, Thing From the Flood, and Symbaroum all have their followings. It's the SETTING that is drawing the player base in. Twilight2000 needs the same attention to detail or it will fail.

[unipus]

As a gamemaster with 42 YEARS of experience with every system from D20 roll over, to D20 roll under, to 2D6, 3D6, percentile, dice pool, and even odd systems like the FATE system, I have to say that this is the WORST advice I have ever seen given by a game developer!

One of the basic tenents of being a GM is that you are the Story's Narrator, the Character's source of "perception" of the world they inhabit, and the source of all of their challenges. What you are NOT... is their OPPONENT!


So, how is what you're describing different from being "the source of all their challenges"?

Whether you go over the very blurry line into being adversarial is pretty subjective, and I think the book has some words of caution about that as well. There are many encounter tables (and now world/story-building oracles either inspired by or written by Shawn Tomkin, who I'd credit as being the best narrative game designer on the planet right this moment) and systems that do quite plainly allow you to let the dice do the talking -- which is 100% what I have done with my own campaign, and it has made many of the very best story moments!

None of that is adversarial unless you, the individual GM, choose to make it so. And usually that sort of thing comes directly from the tradition of very oldschool games, and not at all from the newer influences that this edition tries to infuse a bit of.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically.
That is simply not the case and shows a marked ignorance of the viewpoints and experiences of the people here. Very few people were innately hostile to FL's reboot when it was announced, we were mostly curious but cautious and some were even excited about it.
However there have been several attempts to relaunch the game in the past and only one of them ever got to market (that being 2013).
People here feel as though they have been promised a new version of the game only to be let down and when this happens several times over the last two decades, you get the feeling that you do not want to get burnt again.

Once we saw what FL wanted to do to the game, some people did become negative towards it and some even became hostile. I am certainly one of the people who has a negative reaction to this reboot because I do not see it replicating those elements that made T2k as memorable or enjoyable for me.
Now before it's even asked, I backed the kickstarter and have access to the beta material so I have the same information as anyone else. I also own Tales From The Loop and all its supplements.
While I enjoy the background material and overall concept of Tales From The Loop, I do feel that the Year Zero rules would work well for it given that your characters are inexperienced young people. However for the characters of T2k, they have acquired a much larger range of skills and experiences and newer game systems like Year Zero and also including D&D ignore the range of skills so as to "streamline" the play experience.
This is meant to speed up gameplay and simplify everyone's workload and reduce book-keeping.

Personally I find this lack of skills to be immensely unsatisfying, for example, where in the past editions of D&D you had a rope skill, now you default to Intelligence for any rope skill test. It's quick but oh so dull and does not give any impression that the character has a unique collection of skills and experiences that make them somewhat special and a useful asset for the group.
As for some of the other rules in Year Zero games, I find them dumb to the point of insulting. The one person per 10 kilometre hex for scavenging is a prime example - it's an artificial limiter to force gameplay and being so artificial it's incredibly immersion breaking because anyone who has ever gone into the forest to collect mushrooms or berries can tell you, you do not need to scour a 10 kilometre area to find a lot of food - and that's even without any sort of hunting.

[Legbreaker]

As a gamemaster with...

Cannot agree more with your entire post.

[Lurken]

None of that is adversarial unless you, the individual GM, choose to make it so. And usually that sort of thing comes directly from the tradition of very oldschool games, and not at all from the newer influences that this edition tries to infuse a bit of.

But how would you interpret the two key quotes I found in the BETA? The GMs are encouraged, not told you can choose to be an adversary. And it may be a reason the adversarial GM-style has gone the way of the dodo. It is not fun and constructive for a long term campaign where all participants wants to have fun.

In v1, v2 and v3 (v2013), there are zero encouragement to be adversarial. It is all quite dry in that aspect. Only that during this and that condition, you are to roll on the encounter tables and resolve the results.

That is simply not the case and shows a marked ignorance of the viewpoints and experiences of the people here. Very few people were innately hostile to FL's reboot when it was announced, we were mostly curious but cautious and some were even excited about it.
However there have been several attempts to relaunch the game in the past and only one of them ever got to market (that being 2013).
People here feel as though they have been promised a new version of the game only to be let down and when this happens several times over the last two decades, you get the feeling that you do not want to get burnt again.

Well said, most of us was hyped here when FL promised a remake of v2. Then it soured quickly as the background and rules were lacking, non-sensical and heavily departing from the established T2k-norm. Which was a reason why v.2013 got so much criticism, it deviated too much from the established T2k-norm. While v.2013 have been receiving a resurgence now for the rules inside it, and only the rules as they managed to describe things more sharply accuratly than in v1 and v2. It was just that the setting had massive issues, like the Chinese intentionally poisoning the world with lead-infused toys.

[Legbreaker]

...like the Chinese intentionally poisoning the world with lead-infused toys.

Well, that aspect doesn't seem so far fetched now does it after the events of the last year and a half... :/

[unipus]

But how would you interpret the two key quotes I found in the BETA? The GMs are encouraged, not told you can choose to be an adversary. And it may be a reason the adversarial GM-style has gone the way of the dodo. It is not fun and constructive for a long term campaign where all participants wants to have fun.

In v1, v2 and v3 (v2013), there are zero encouragement to be adversarial. It is all quite dry in that aspect. Only that during this and that condition, you are to roll on the encounter tables and resolve the results.


In most games of a certain age, there's frankly zero encouragement or guidance of how to do much of anything beyond roll dice on encounter tables. Whether this was because nobody had any idea of how to do otherwise, or that they wanted to sell more poorly conceived adventure supplements, I can't say. But, it that sure did lead to some boring and tedious gameplay when I was just getting started with RPGs in my teens. Might have been different if I had happened to know any amazing GMs, but those were much rarer then. The published materials didn't have much help to offer a rookie.

The GM shouldn't be adversarial, but they must portray an adversary. They must be the face of challenges. Maybe we're different, but I don't want to spend much time at all on a game that's just random encounter rolls. I want to play a game where the person doing most of the storyweaving actually has the tools to do that, where surprising things happen, and where they're tied to character moments that make them impactful. It's no surprise at all that one of the things OSR games have tended to add to their classic roots are things relating to character motives, and XP triggers beyond "you killed the baddies," and so on. These things make for interesting, surprising stories that feel collaborative. They were wholly absent from the original games.

There have been a few passages in the FL book regarding "how to run the game" that have made me shake my head a bit or think "Hm, that's not how I would do it."
(But quoting them out of context is just proving my point about the innate hostility here.) Several of those have now been edited after people such as myself pointed them out. Nonetheless I think it's far, far better for the game/hobby by far that books provide aspiring GMs with guidance and storytelling tools that are entwined with mechanics, which is what they're mostly doing these days.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

[unipus]

If you hang on every word of the published setting then yeah, I can see some major disappointments with the alpha, particularly (and most of this giant thread about "rules and mechanics" has actually been bitching about the setting).

I'm personally amazed to find that people do that, though. The setting is the easiest thing in the world to tweak. You could have changed it to anything you wanted, from day one, and I don't think I know any GMs that run games in 100% the setting the book tells them. Tweaking that to suit your own tastes is a big part of the fun!

In fact, with lack of OOBs and so on until now, my own campaign has moved forward almost entirely using 1st edition maps, timelines, and so on. I had issues with a number of aspects in the alpha setting, so I changed them, and had a crisis in Poland itself be the flashpoint for the war at large. Maybe they liked this idea from me personally, I don't know -- but I'll note that it is actually now the official background in the revised setting. The French background has been revised based on feedback from French players. The UK background has been revised... blah blah blah. It is all much, much better now and aside from a few small details, I wouldn't hesitate to put right in front of players as written. Those objectionable details that remain truly do not matter. My players don't need to know whether there's an aircraft carrier in the Baltic! It's a non-issue. Bugs on the windshield.

[Lurken]

The GM shouldn't be adversarial, but they must portray an adversary. They must be the face of challenges. Maybe we're different, but I don't want to spend much time at all on a game that's just random encounter rolls. I want to play a game where the person doing most of the storyweaving actually has the tools to do that, where surprising things happen, and where they're tied to character moments that make them impactful.


In my game I am running, I am following the encounter tables religiously. Why? Because encounters are DEADLY (both ways). If I follow the encounter tables, I cannot be tainted by GM bias against or for my group. However, I try to make sense of them and use them no matter what the outcome is. My group encountered a German Large Unit south east of Kalisz and then some. How the hell did they end up there? So, I used the week to figure that out, and even found exactly what unit it should have been. And so on I continue, all travelling encounters that are to be randomly decided are woven into the world with a believable context. Another highlight was the randomly genned smugglers, and the two man Marauder gang in an OT-65 that was genned during night while the group had decided to camp out at the now vacated smuggler hidout. Why where the two men in an OT-65 there?

It is questions like that, that makes the encounter tables work.

And it is very unfair to label me as hostile. Before the release of material I was hopeful for the system, game and developer. If you go back, I tried to dissuade negativity before we knew stuff. As I own and have played a number of FL's game, and had very much fun. I knew they did the systems in a very non-granular way, but they promised me that they would adhere to the feel and spirit of T2k v.2, in setting and rules. They did not.

And are you calling me cherry picking quotes when I quote the entire bullet point where they recommend not to track NPC's water and food, or when they encourage GMs to pick on sole PCs (without even considering the fact that PCs may lack radios, hard to decide to help the lone PC, if there are no way for the lone PC to call for help).

[Olefin]

"And regarding players who decide to let their PC go out alone for scrounging/hunting/scouting/whatever: "Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage. Putting a PC on the spot will test the loyalty of the others - what are they willing to risk to save their friend.""

I cannot believe that any gaming company would put a statement like that in their official release. Now I really am glad I asked from my money back.

Oh and Unipus - the setting of the game and its background feeling right is 100% important when you are making a reboot of a classic franchise like Twilight 2000. This isnt something new where you can do what you want since its all new unbroken ground - or a reboot of something so old that literally no one is still around playing the game.

This is a game system that has had four new releases in the last few years and thousands of long term hard core fans who still play the two original systems.

Ignoring those hard core fans as we done in the Alpha release isnt a good way to do a reboot. And the changes that were done for the beta, from what I have seen, were only done begrudgingly after a lot of people pointed out just how amazingly stupid the idea was of a Soviet invasion of the UK (while apparently the RAF and RN was out for tea) or an American nuclear carrier sailing thru a channel barely 30 yards wider on each side than the carrier itself is to get to where it supposedly was docked to where five or six guys with RPG's could have done a lot of damage to it.

Yes they want to attract new fans - but you dont do it by basically ignoring the hard core gamers who kept the dream alive in the process.

Also a viable campaign setting with things like Orders of Battle and what divisions and units are around is very important if you are asking others to write releases for the game. The four new releases for the game were done by various authors because we had a viable campaign setting to write them around. We didnt just ignore the setting and make up our own - we counted on the designers of the game to give us one that made sense as part of their responsibilities of doing a proper job of the release in the first place.

[Raellus]

First off, welcome Unipus. Believe it or not, many of us here welcome fresh perspectives on T2k.

When I started this thread, my intent was to create a space to discuss the v4 rules and mechanics in an unbiased manner. I was hoping this discussion would be constructive- highlighting what works well, what could be improved and, more importantly, how (in a practical way)- that sort of thing.

Instead, the level of discussion has often wallowed at the level of "This sucks! Rewrite it entirely!" Not constructive.

IMHO, v4 is far from perfect. But let's give FL a little credit. The Beta includes numerous changes, some of them substantial, to the rules (and setting) presented in the Alpha. They've managed to produce a better game than they what they rolled out initially. It's still got issues, but instead of ranting, why don't we try to come up with workable solutions here?

-

[Olefin]

If you hang on every word of the published setting then yeah, I can see some major disappointments with the alpha, particularly (and most of this giant thread about "rules and mechanics" has actually been bitching about the setting).

I'm personally amazed to find that people do that, though. The setting is the easiest thing in the world to tweak. You could have changed it to anything you wanted, from day one, and I don't think I know any GMs that run games in 100% the setting the book tells them. Tweaking that to suit your own tastes is a big part of the fun!

In fact, with lack of OOBs and so on until now, my own campaign has moved forward almost entirely using 1st edition maps, timelines, and so on. I had issues with a number of aspects in the alpha setting, so I changed them, and had a crisis in Poland itself be the flashpoint for the war at large. Maybe they liked this idea from me personally, I don't know -- but I'll note that it is actually now the official background in the revised setting. The French background has been revised based on feedback from French players. The UK background has been revised... blah blah blah. It is all much, much better now and aside from a few small details, I wouldn't hesitate to put right in front of players as written. Those objectionable details that remain truly do not matter. My players don't need to know whether there's an aircraft carrier in the Baltic! It's a non-issue. Bugs on the windshield.

Actually those details do matter a lot if you are either writing for the game or if you want to campaign somewhere other than just Poland. The Twilight War is a global event - that was one thing that the V2.2. had right - it gave enough details you could set a campaign almost anywhere.

FYI not doing simple OOB and details on units by doing saying they are all basically destroyed with a "the entire NATO armies are overrun and run for the hills" (from the alpha release) is basically abrogating your responsibility as a game designer.

There is a ton of information out there on OOB's, equipment, etc. - hell why didnt they take a stroll thru Paul's site?? And between the various V1 and V2 books and the information we have posted here you could do an OOB's section in probably about one day. Its the same time period as the old timeline and Marc Miller is on board - have a feeling he would have said sure just take the old books, update them a little and call them V4 - all you need to do is add the Swedish units.

Thats why seeing those OOB's and other things that were in the Beta is encouraging - because the lack of it in the Alpha (or even something as simple as "we will get to all of that in the Beta" was definitely a major "oh crap" moment for many of us)

[unipus]

In my game I am running, I am following the encounter tables religiously. Why? Because encounters are DEADLY (both ways). If I follow the encounter tables, I cannot be tainted by GM bias against or for my group. However, I try to make sense of them and use them no matter what the outcome is. My group encountered a German Large Unit south east of Kalisz and then some. How the hell did they end up there? So, I used the week to figure that out, and even found exactly what unit it should have been. And so on I continue, all travelling encounters that are to be randomly decided are woven into the world with a believable context. Another highlight was the randomly genned smugglers, and the two man Marauder gang in an OT-65 that was genned during night while the group had decided to camp out at the now vacated smuggler hidout. Why where the two men in an OT-65 there?

It is questions like that, that makes the encounter tables work.

And it is very unfair to label me as hostile. Before the release of material I was hopeful for the system, game and developer. If you go back, I tried to dissuade negativity before we knew stuff. As I own and have played a number of FL's game, and had very much fun. I knew they did the systems in a very non-granular way, but they promised me that they would adhere to the feel and spirit of T2k v.2, in setting and rules. They did not.

And are you calling me cherry picking quotes when I quote the entire bullet point where they recommend not to track NPC's water and food, or when they encourage GMs to pick on sole PCs (without even considering the fact that PCs may lack radios, hard to decide to help the lone PC, if there are no way for the lone PC to call for help).

I wasn't referring specifically to you, regarding hostility. There are far worse offenders. But I think Raellus is 100% correct... seems like a lot of people decided to circle the wagons before the Indians even went on the warpath. Personally, having read the entirety of v4 now multiple times, and re-read the entirety of v1 (and many of its supplements), I find it impossible not to see the same DNA between them in many many places.

Anyway. Here's the section that immediately follows what you posted about NPC ammo and food:

As a general rule, NPCs follow the same rules as PCs during combat unless otherwise stated. However, in order to minimize bookkeeping and avoid slowing combat down, a number of simplified rules for minor NPCs are included in chapter 4 of the Players’ Manual. These are all repeated here, for your reference.
You are never obliged to use the simplified rules – for key NPCs, it’s
often worthwhile to use the full rules, just like for PCs.

There's more on the same theme, of course, elsewhere. Posting optional rules for accelerating the game as if they were the game's sole gospel fits the very definition of cherry-picking, to me.

My opinion? A GM should absolutely be biased... towards whatever will be fun and exciting stories for the group as a whole. If totally random encounters get you there, then that's all well and good. Like I said, the beta now also includes a new solo play section that is full of very useful "oracles" -- and tools like that are a godsend for GMs. My own campaign has a couple of overarching narratives. I use the random encounters when I feel they won't be a distraction from progress or goals the players are actively seeking. If they don't fit the situation, or I think they're likely to throw the group way off track, then I simply toss them out. If the players are aggressively pursuing a particular story beat, and we're all having fun doing it, but they're running low on food? Well, guess what, I'll make sure the next encounter has some food, so that the story doesn't grind to a halt while we go fishing for an hour. Learned that lesson too many times in too many games. Other times, if things are feeling more directionless or freeform, then I'll turn up the pressure on resources and remind them that survival isn't easy, until they come up with a new objective and a new story emerges.

Am I executing bias in doing that? Absolutely, yes. That's my job: to curate an overall interesting story that isn't just a bunch of random happenings, and that is tied to what the characters (and more importantly players) are interested in exploring. A different sort of GM, yourself perhaps, could maybe do that entirely with random encounters. As you said, context is key. If you're able to weave context into these things 10 times out of 10, then fantastic. Personally I find it's more like 6/10, but nonetheless I do use the will of the dice constantly to flesh out small details, motivations, and story events. Being surprised is a great thing for GMs and players. But only if you can tie the surprise and randomness back into a coherent story somehow. The book has a number of thoughts on how to do this, how to make events personal, how to draw conflict out of happenstance. IMO, all of that is very good stuff. It is a philosophy on how to run a rewarding roleplaying game. Many of the games of the '80s lacked any such philosophy. The language and knowledge didn't exist. Here were some tables, and you're on your own. GDW T2K was a little better than most, but it was still essentially a fairly empty framework that you had to figure out how to build a house around without a lot of help.

[unipus]

Actually those details do matter a lot if you are either writing for the game or if you want to campaign somewhere other than just Poland. The Twilight War is a global event - that was one thing that the V2.2. had right - it gave enough details you could set a campaign almost anywhere.

FYI not doing simple OOB and details on units by doing saying they are all basically destroyed with a "the entire NATO armies are overrun and run for the hills" (from the alpha release) is basically abrogating your responsibility as a game designer.

There is a ton of information out there on OOB's, equipment, etc. - hell why didnt they take a stroll thru Paul's site?? And between the various V1 and V2 books and the information we have posted here you could do an OOB's section in probably about one day. Its the same time period as the old timeline and Marc Miller is on board - have a feeling he would have said sure just take the old books, update them a little and call them V4 - all you need to do is add the Swedish units.


Because it wasn't done? All of that stuff is in the beta now.

[unipus]

Anyway, thanks for the welcome, Raellus. I've actually been lurking here for quite a long time, enjoying some of the better resources I've found. Why I let this conversation, of all things, coax me into making an account is becoming more and more mysterious to me.

I mean, I'm not a stranger to this kind of gatekeeping behavior. It occurs in every fanbase. And it's usually a very small, very loud minority doing it while everyone else gets on with enjoying the thing they like (or, if they don't like it, realize it's not a personal attack on them, and goes about their lives). It does strike me that by now, though, FL has probably realized it's pretty unpleasant and risky to engage much with the entrenched T2K community, because it generally doesn't look like a winning battle when you read threads like this!

But meanwhile they've introduced quite a lot of new people to the game and setting (only 2 of my 5 regular players had ever heard of Twilight), and the people coming at it with fresh eyes seem far more capable of giving it a fair evaluation. The product has turned out to be quite successful for them so far; I personally am hoping that it continues to be so and that this gives them the runway to continue to develop the game and stories around it. GDW didn't get it all right on their first pass (or in any pass, really) but with time they continually evolved and (usually) improved on it.


edit: in the spirit of the actual topic of the thread I'm happy to share some of my house rules and suggestions that have made things run a little better, IMO. I'm happy to report that I'll be retiring a lot of them, though, since the beta seems to have adopted some of them directly and made changes to other things that work just as well.

[Olefin]

Because it wasn't done? All of that stuff is in the beta now.

And that is why the complaints occurred with the Alpha release - because that info wasnt there and when questions were asked about them the general response was "the units are destroyed why do we need an OOB or Army guide"

And similar comments were made on the FL board to things like the Soviet invasion of England being completely unrealistic as well as the timeline issues - i.e. it was very dismissive of those who weren't gushing with compliments

Thats an example of why there was so much negativity to the Alpha - and if the Beta shows they listened to us then maybe V4 will be successful

[unipus]

There's no longer an "if," you could read it right now and see exactly what was done. I'm happy to report that they changed a lot more than I expected, personally.

One of the only things they did not change at all was one of my core complaints with the rules, unfortunately, which is that there just aren't quite enough skills IMO. I may still end up house-ruling this one, lots of good ideas were tossed around I think, but it's kind of a big haul.

[Lurken]

Raellus, we have been trying to find solutions. And they did improve the timeline and other bits in the rules. I'll give them that.

However, for us (me) it has been like shouting at a brick wall. Because we are all sending letters out to sea, with no communication going the other way. Though we did see them react in some places in the book, so far.

Some things are not to be improved, some things are to be removed.

In closing, we are not toxic, imho. I'll give that we are very defensive of a property that we have been squating in while building and improving it. Now, that property was bought up and we were evicted from it. All we can do is to watch all our hard work being tossed out. Of course we are not enthused by this.

[Olefin]

Personally to me the biggest mistake that FL made was to even release the Alpha at all. It had all the hallmarks of a rushed out, well we told them they would have something so we have to release it, kind of release.

They should have just swallowed their pride, only sent the Alpha out to a select group for reviews and said give us a few months longer and made the first official public release what was just released as the Beta.

I suspect if they had done that it would have been recieved a lot better.

[unipus]

That would be a terrible decision. The alpha phase did exactly what it was supposed to do: draw a significant amount of feedback, which they were then able to review and adapt from.

If they skipped that phase all you would have gotten was a more-complete alpha, an even bigger wave of hysteria because no one has seen any of it. The background would likely have been in the same state it was in the alpha. The rules would not have been diversely tested and reviewed. And they'd probably be in much less of a position to change any of it. In other words, the situation that the angriest (and wrongest) voices here said was the case about the alpha would have actually been true.

[Raellus]

In closing, we are not toxic, imho. I'll give that we are very defensive of a property that we have been squating in while building and improving it. Now, that property was bought up and we were evicted from it. All we can do is to watch all our hard work being tossed out. Of course we are not enthused by this.

I love T2k as much as the next superfan. I've tried to do a bit of building of my own (see my sig). So, to some degree, I can understand the passions that were aroused by the Alpha. That said, I don't get why some folks here seem to take FL's vision personally. Like, none of us here own T2k. We didn't get evicted from anything, and our hard work hasn't been tossed out. It's still here, and people can still use it if they like it. IMHO, the belief that if a creator doesn't do sweeping fan-service to the Old Breed that they are somehow being mean or disrespectful or ungrateful or whatever is the very root of toxic fandom. Bitter is not a good look.

FL dev's don't have time to read and respond to every single upset fan's "suggestions". And I don't know about you, but if I was a dev, I wouldn't want to respond to frothing "fans" telling me that "X is ridiculous, Y is stupid, and Z is a joke", or essentially "start over". That was the gist of a lot of the "feedback" that ended up being ignored. I really don't wonder why.

A point I've tried to make again and again is that it's not so much what someone says that's important, but how they say it. No one likes to receive harsh criticism. It tends to make one defensive and less open to constructive feedback.

And, frankly, the new generation of gamers probably doesn't really care what we old grognards think anyway- especially when the nature of OG fans' opinions is, "the old stuff is awesome; new stuff sucks". I teach high school (juniors, 16-17ya) and I see generational shifts in taste every day. For example, I love the original Star Wars movies and loathe the prequels with every fiber of my being. My current crop of students love the prequels and don't think the original trilogy is all that great. There's no love like first love, I guess.

[pmulcahy11b]

Personally to me the biggest mistake that FL made was to even release the Alpha at all.

That's a good point. From computers to big industry, alphas (with a few hiccups) are only distributed to a select few for testing. Usually, they're kept in house during their alpha period.

[unipus]

FL dev's don't have time to read and respond to every single upset fan's "suggestions". And I don't know about you, but if I was a dev, I wouldn't want to respond to frothing "fans" telling me that "X is ridiculous, Y is stupid, and Z is a joke", or essentially "start over". That was the gist of a lot of the "feedback" that ended up being ignored. I really don't wonder why.

A point I've tried to make again and again is that it's not so much what someone says that's important, but how they say it. No one likes to receive harsh criticism. It tends to make one defensive and less open to constructive feedback.

QFT. I'm happy to say that a number of suggestions and rules changes that I personally came up with, or developed with their community, are included in the beta. But it sure wasn't became I came in screeching; it's because I (or somebody) pointed out an issue, made suggestions of practical, attainable changes, and worked with other people in the community to come up with something that actually worked. Now we have armor that isn't useless after being hit one time, armored vehicles that can't routinely be penetrated by lucky 5.56 rounds, SMGs and pistols that have a reason to exist, Coolness Under Fire rules with a little more depth to them, and travel rules that are consistent throughout, among plenty of other things I'm sure I'm forgetting -- not least of all, a significantly updated background. So it seems like the process worked just fine.

[Olefin]

Well luckily some of us who made a fuss were listened to as well - otherwise Tomas wouldnt have changed his mind

Quote from Tomas email to me

"Soviet invasion of the UK. Agree, maybe not very realistic, but we need it (or some version of it) to make the UK an interesting game setting. Many of our players are in the UK, and will want to play Twilight: 2000 in their home country."

So at least some of what I and others were telling him as to how unrealistic the Soviet Sea Lion was finally got listened to

And glad that they changed some of the rules too - especially the travel rules which at the time made basically no sense

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Going back over this thread (and others) I see the term "simulationist" used a number of times to describe T2k. I do not particularly agree with that label but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. For me, it conjures up images of tabletop wargaming or strategy type boardgames.
I've never viewed T2k as recreating a NATO versus WarPact, strategy game, or worse, some USA vs. the Evil Empire Russian Red Bear, jingoistic Red Dawn type power fantasy game. It has always been a survival genre game set in the immediate post-war and with a strong military theme & flavour.
So with that in mind, I readily see that the term does apply in one sense and this is to me, actually quite important to explain why I personally like 1st & 2nd Ed. rules for Twilight: 2000 and do not particularly like the Year Zero rules for Twilight: 2000.

The original game was written by various people, some of whom had a number of years in the military or were combat veterans or who had a long term interest in the military. When they wrote the game it was with that experience informing them of how to write a game that was trying to replicate a military experience.
As one of the people here who has spent time in the military, the GDW editions and also 2013 feel "right", that is to say, they are quite effective at replicating that military feel because they were written by people who knew what that "feel" was.

The impression I get from FL's reboot is that it is written by people who have had very little experience either with or within the military. Even it's lead military consultant has very few years in the military and was little more than a junior NCO who it seems was simply riding the GI Bill to pay for his college tuition. It feels like a game that is from the perspective of people who have watched plenty of war movies but have little real world knowledge of being in the military and to paraphrase one of the developers, they wanted to "recreate the thrills of car chases and gunfights you see in the movies". It very much feels like it was informed by all the "cool" stuff that non-military people believe makes the military interesting. For me, someone who has military experience, it breaks immersion too much.

Ultimately, for me, FL's vision of T2k feels like it is nothing more than Mutant Year Zero with the mutants removed and a Twilight: 2000 skin plastered on top and as such it leaves me wanting more, oh so much more.
But I also recognise that these newer games are not written for people who grew up with gaming in the 1970s-90s, it appears to be very much applicable to the 2010s crowd of gamers. These gamers have a different idea of what makes a good game. It seems to me that they want instant gratification in their games rather than work towards the reward and these newer games quite often cater to that.

It's unlikely I will ever find the Year Zero rules & mechanics satisfying for a military themed game like Twilight: 2000. I actually think they work fine for Tales From The Loop but in that game, you role-play children or young adolescents, people who have not had the time to collect significant life skills & experiences. But for the Twilight: 2000 setting, where characters have typically experienced a full run of primary and secondary education, probably had jobs and all of whom have at least four years in the war? They just don't go far enough.
To me, the rules & mechanics of the Year Zero games do not scratch my itch the way that a military themed game should.

So for me, the solution is obvious. I will pillage FL's reboot for any useful materials but it will not be worth using the rules to replicate the kind of military genre game that I want. I will continue to use the 2.2 rules with a few tweaks. There is no value for me in trying to make the Year Zero rules work when I have a fully functioning set of rules already available that work for what I want.

[Legbreaker]

I'm actually insulted that the somebody who is supposed to be neutral and unbiased is being so confrontational and accusing everyone who disagrees as "toxic". :mad:
It's the language of division and bigotry. This is not good enough and the person should really take a step back and think about their actions and words.

Some of us have done our absolute best to advise FL on their product, calling attention to the problems. To be accused of being "toxic" because we want something that meets the overall communities expectations is utterly abhorrent!

[mpipes]

For me its sorta like what Kathleen Kennedy did with Star Wars.

She killed off Han. She turned Luke into a loser, and Princess Leia into Mary Poppins. A Palatine was put in Luke's shoes. We had bombers dropping bombs in space, Leia slapping a Rebellion pilot, a formal gown wearing Admiral, a magic knife, Lando sleeping with a droid (?), and to really cap it all with the cherry on top....we had a cavalry charge on a Star Destroyer. Basically, to many if not most, and certainly to me, it was a train wreck.

In short, she ignored the legacy material as much as possible, and she destroyed most fans' favorite characters in one way or the other. So now, Disney is starting to feel the sting from a core IP property LOSING MONEY. Funny how fans can react to "improvements."

IMHO FL is on a similar track. They will not persuade anywhere near a majority of fans here to buy this product. I think they should go back to the background of the original and make a number or reasonably REALISTIC changes and get rid of the more ridiculous elements, They want Sweden in the mix, have an errant nuke go off in the country or a group of Spetsnaz cross the border and kill a bunch of civilians. You can even have the Soviets invade Sweden to capture an airbase to support Frontal Aviation. And you could put an airborne Brigade into the UK to start massacring civilians to draw off a division or two (its like civilians in the UK own guns or even pitchforks).

Basically, all they have done is put a Year Zero game out with a WWW3 setting and called it - TWILIGHT:2000. For me, it is beyond silly to buy the rights to a game, and then write something that is completely different. That is why many of us here were totally aghast at the Alpha release. Other than the name, it had NO relation to the GDW originals. It was their concept, with their timeline setting, and their rules. Far from being an updated and expanded edition (as it were) with updated rules, graphics, etc.. it was a TOTALLY different game, and not one that is likely to capture the attentions of fans of the GDW game. Now that is fine. Gung ho and yay FL we hope you make money, but don't expect fans of the original to be sold on it.

[unipus]

I'm real curious what some of you guys were expecting.

I don't think it's a big shock that almost no RPG today is built on the foundation of the old GDW games. They had some interesting systems (certainly for character generation), but not a lot of elegance in those rules and not much you could push them before they were completely unwieldy. They're great reference (with a grain of salt), but I feel no nostalgia at all for the task of actually gaming with them. The "instant gratification" I am looking for (as a '90s gamer) is a system that is intuitive, quick, rich in theme tied to mechanics, and detailed enough to generate great, specific stories.

[Lurken]

I expected a solid game with better story than v1 and v2. Because both of them have plotholes the size of buffalos. Plotholes that created a lot of hot discussions on how to resolve them and make them understandable. Discussions that have mostly been resolved, other than possibly the canon status of Howling Wilderness.

When FL promised a remake of v2, we expected that. Same general plot, tweaked of course, to make use of our now better knowledge of the countries involved and the gaps earlier discovered and hotly discussed. We did not get that. We got Year Zero with a paint job of T2k slapped over it. Year Zero is a nice game for what it delivers, quick non-complex gaming.

T2k is not non-complex however. Logistics needs to be taken heavily account for. Traveling and planning as well.

I did some thinking, and under the hood, v1+v2 is not that different from v.FL. Both rely on random encounters from tables, or from a deck of cards. Both have a town/settlement generator. What I find different (from memory) is that v2 has a fairly good chapter about detailing how different generic groups may operate and their motives. Also GDW detailed a large number of towns in where ever the sandbox was placed. Be they occupied or abandoned, they were defined. So also a large number of military units, rebels and marauders. This gave a good background to work with in co-junction with the encounter tables.

The intel briefs for Sweden and Poland in v.FL are lacking in that regard. The number of towns/settlements defined in them are very low, be abandoned or not, and the military units feels disconnected from each other in a way. Can't quite put words to it. Meaning that using v.FLs story and setting will put a lot more focus on the GM to weave a understandable, coherent, reasonable and logical world for the players to move around in.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

What we were expecting, once we found out they were not going to deliver on the claim of updating 2nd/2.2 was a set of rules and a gameworld that complimented each other so that the gritty survival theme of living in the ashes of WW3 could be played out.
Instead what was offered was "survival lite" with a bunch of pseudo-military bits & pieces that, rather than support the idea of trying to survive and rebuild the world after we broke it, we get pulp action rules catering to the mall ninja crowd.

Here's a simple fact, Twilight: 2000 was set as a harsh, gritty, survival after a nuclear worldwide war setting based on the real world as opposed to the fantasy of say Gamma World. It is not meant to be easy, it was not meant to be swinging from the chandeliers and being a white knight.
So here's a simple truth, if people don't actually want to play a harsh game, then Twilight: 2000 is not the game for them.

I'm going to be brutally cynical here...
When FL announced that they were going to relaunch T2k, they said that they were going to tweak the game but keep it in the alternate history setting. As such, they implied that they were going to update the 2.2 rules.
Instead, they simply used the Year Zero rules.
For many people, that felt like a bait & switch move, it felt like they told us what they thought we wanted to hear to ensure we would buy the product when they had no intention of ever delivering what they said.

So, with their complete lack of engagement with many T2k forums in the beginning and with their plan to make T2k another Year Zero game, many people feel as though they have been dumped on from a great height.
If FL had no intention of relaunching the game in the manner that they implied, then why call it Twilight: 2000 at all?
They could have called it anything else.
But to use the Twilight: 2000 name very much feels like they wanted to suck in the existing fanbase and get all the cash they could from them before that fanbase realised they were not getting what they expected.

What we expected from FL was what FL said they would deliver and what they ultimately did deliver is not what we were told. Some of the audience was, understandably, left confused and uncertain of what they would be getting. They did not get what they were told they would get. Instead, this feels like Free League trying to give us a gateway drug to get us hooked on Year Zero so that we buy more of their product. They made a hell of a lot of money from the kickstarter, I guess they figured right when they figured that nostalgia would be a money earner.

[sellanraa]

What I'm most curious about is the reality v perception.

How many backers are older excited folks from earlier editions v new Free League supporters who had no idea about the old versions? How many older folks are as devastated as the handful of posters here v quietly accepting or even happy about the revision of the game?

I've been most excited that it's being introduced to a big new audience because my perception (note that I acknowledge I don't know the numbers) is that T2K players are a pretty small, maybe even incredibly small but committed group. There are what, a dozen or so folks here posting regularly at what is the busiest forum of the old guard? It feels like a little clubhouse. I love the passion but a tiny community nevertheless. No idea about how active FB groups are since I deleted but those also seemed quiet. That isn't meant to be a jab or anything, I admire your all's commitment.

That said, my perception (again, not knowing the numbers) is that FL just blew the door open on interest in the game and if even a fraction of those new folks dip into the older editions, it's a chance to expand this older edition community as well. For me personally, I don't want to sit at a table for hours resolving one firefight. I didn't even particularly love it when I played T2K through stretches of the 90s. So I'm happy maybe the combat will be a bit faster. What has most bummed me out is the overly simplified character creation. If they had expanded the skill lists and lifepaths just a bit, I'd have been way more satisfied. I've already debated selling the new edition metal box knowing it's unlikely I'll ever play it, but then, I've barely played the older editions in the last 20+ years because it's hard to find compatible folks who are interested in the game too (ignoring logistical challenges), yet every book sits quietly on the shelf anyway.

So back the primary thought, I wish we had the data on perception v reality. What do the numbers look like? My hunch without the data is that the tradeoff FL made was alienating a handful of the old guard to open the doors to several thousand new and interested Twilight:2000 players which exponentially grew the community. Folks here feel the sting, somewhat understandably, but I'm most sad that the vitriol means the new folks curiously investigating this forum won't feel welcome and the community here will not grow, which may be what some of you want based on the the tone of discussion sometimes. But we will likely never know any of this in any concrete way without data because most folks stay out of these discussions and just play the game. The likely vocal minority and silent majority skews our perception without that data.

[Tegyrius]

I'm reserving judgement on the product until I see the final version (and, quite frankly, I don't have time to review the current public material right now because of my current operational tempo at work). Having been involved with a few product development cycles over my own freelance career, I try to remain mindful that significant changes can occur in the spaces between first draft, redlines, playtesting, and release, so I am not inclined to leap to conclusions about the final product based on preliminary material.

Having said that, I find myself largely in agreement with sellanraa regarding Free League's design intentions and this forum's fan community. The level of toxicity here usually simmers right around my tolerance level. I remain somewhat engaged here because of my appreciation for the game and its genre, not because I feel particularly comfortable or welcome. Looking back at threads from more than a decade ago, the tone of discourse here has most definitely taken a turn for the worse. I think that's driven by a combination of a few stridently argumentative voices, a couple of prolific high-volume/low-content posters who mistakenly equate quantity with quality, and the departure of many members who used to provide thoughtful, considered input. The result, IMO, is an opaque and reactionary social group that I doubt is welcoming to many new members who might come here from Free League's target audience.

When I try to look at the community with an outsider's eye, I'm thoroughly unsurprised that the company chose not to engage here. Some of the reactions on display in this thread are exactly why I chose not to tell this community about The Pacific Northwest before its release. Getting this sort of "feedback" would have taken my joy from the creative process into the woods, shot it in the back of the head, and buried it in a shallow unmarked grave.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"?

[Raellus]

Speaking only for myself, I did not call anyone toxic. I described behavior which is widely considered toxic in the milieu of fandom. I did not intend to insult or trigger anyone.

-

[unipus]

When FL announced that they were going to relaunch T2k, they said that they were going to tweak the game but keep it in the alternate history setting. As such, they implied that they were going to update the 2.2 rules.

Well, seems like the problem is immediately obvious just from reading that one paragraph. They didn't imply that, you inferred it. You read something that was never written and pinned a lot of false hopes on it. No wonder it doesn't live up to your expectations. But that's not on FL.

In any case, I get the definite impression many here haven't actually even thoroughly read the new edition, or at least certainly haven't played it. Some aspects have needed development or haven't even existed until this week. But the combat system alone is an example of something I've seen people complain about over and over here -- while somehow praising past editions. In actual play? I've found it consistently generates results that resemble reality, and reward the side that applies real-world tactics to fix, flank, and finish the enemy. And, while still being a little slower than I'd like, it's definitely much faster and more fluid to resolve than prior editions.

[unipus]

When I try to look at the community with an outsider's eye, I'm thoroughly unsurprised that the company chose not to engage here. Some of the reactions on display in this thread are exactly why I chose not to tell this community about The Pacific Northwest before its release. Getting this sort of "feedback" would have taken my joy from the creative process into the woods, shot it in the back of the head, and buried it in a shallow unmarked grave.

- C.

I hear ya. I've definitely thought about working on some modules and so on. But reading stuff like is often posted in this thread saps the joy right out of that idea. I'd hate to write something that challenges someone's 30-year-old conception of what roleplaying and Twilight are! I've got enough salt already, thanks.

[Lurken]

I guess I am a tomato then. As someone wrote.

Painting everyone as people playing this for 30 years is using a very broad brush. I discovered T2k 8 years ago (goodness gracious that long ago?), but got into it for reals only about 3 years ago. I got into it because it was an community and game that had no more drama because everything had been mostly settled. (Except the question of naval ships still floating and Howling Wilderness (and on HW as late as today I got a begrudging lesson on why my earlier take on it may have been wrong)).

However. Please.

Everyone. Please.

Stop. Please.

This is not the time and place. Juhlin is damn peaceful compared to other old fandoms. Let us continue on that path. People have steam they need to vent. Namecalling, direct or implied never helped anyone.

Now. Please.

Let us continue dissecting v.FL, pros and cons. Mechanics, background and other details and how they are similar (remarkably so if you look close enough), what makes them different (good or bad) and what one could do either improve or salvage what can be saved.

[Legbreaker]

It's us older players who's kept the game alive for the better part of three decades since GDW closed their doors - we've kept it going longer than GDW even existed! In my case I've been involved since 1984, the very year 1st ed was published, 37 years ago.
Now given that, shouldn't WE have some say in how the game is written and developed into the future?
Besides FL spending money to buy the name, what right have they to toss out everything that's come before, declare even GDW's materials a "non-canon" and attempt to force feed us a substandard product?
They've had ample opportunity to consult with the wider community, but I can understand why they've tried to keep their pool of advisors relatively small. However, as one of those who was invited to provide input to their draft even before the kickstarter and Alpha release it was abundantly clear they weren't all that interested in anything that didn't fit what THEY wanted. Almost nothing said by those not on their payroll was acknowledged, let alone incorporated.

[Legbreaker]

...and on HW as late as today I got a begrudging lesson on why my earlier take on it may have been wrong.

Begrudging? :o
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations! :D

[Lurken]

Begrudging? :o
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations! :D

Begrudging because I had to retreat from my position from a barrage of good references to other canon sources and sound deductive reasoning =p

[Legbreaker]

Begrudging because I had to retreat from my position from a barrage of good references to other canon sources and sound deductive reasoning =p

Well I do like to back my arguments with evidence and logic. :p

[sellanraa]

For better and worse, no, the old guard is owed absolutely nothing in this new edition. Painful as that may be. Thankfully the older editions are still perfectly playable.

[Lurken]

For better and worse, no, the old guard is owed absolutely nothing in this new edition. Painful as that may be. Thankfully the older editions are still perfectly playable.

If the Old Guard is own nothing, then by Jove! Let the Old Cuard vent in peace. Painful as that may seem to new comers and fans of v.FL and FL. They have steam they need to vent and process. It may not be pretty, but somehow it will come out.

In due time, after they have vented their steam, they will pick apart v.FL and use what ever nuggets may be there. Just like they did with the Third Edition. It had plenty of good rules and concepts, which it has gotten praise for in the years after. After the steam have been vented out.

[sellanraa]

Ha, fair enough. I'm not opposed to you all venting and know that anything I say won't stop it anyway. I just feel it's a shame that folks who may stumble on the forum out of curiosity will have the impression that the venting creates.

All aboard the rage train! :)

[Southernap]

Okay, so looking at the rules and the mechanics of the Beta.

I am still feeling like the "life path" option isn't fully working like V2.0 that I was used to playing.


First hiccup is the 2D3 roll to determine how many increases one can get. No one I know makes a D3 die, so why not just say roll a 1D6.
Also, the letter designations for the main attributes are throwing me off. As well as the dice attributed to those letters. From D12, D10, D8, D6 for the A-D. Also considering that most games still have a point buy system, why isn't that included?
The starting gear selection seems cheapened. In the sense that in either V1 or V2 you could end up with at least a five figure base money to spend on stuff. The agonizing part was trying to decide to spend on some medicine or an extra battery for a radio; if not spending on that M3 Bradley vs having some extra food. In V4 its pick a gun, get a d6 roll for grenades and reloads, then get basic soldiering kit. That seems like a bit of railroading to me.
The specialties seems very interesting and akin to what I have seen in other RPGs about prestige classing or advantages. I will have to dig out my old rules for Top Secret, but I think they did something similar and it when used well it works to round out some rolls. Just needs players to think long term of their characters growth path in relation to the rest of the group..
However, to go with those specialties, there maybe should have been something akin to a resulting decrease or negative modifier for something else. Say for example Brawler gets you a plus one with close combat unarmed, but a negative one with any weapon in your hand in close combat rolls. Again to make the players think long and hard about how they want to build their character
The Moral Code, Big Dream, and Buddy choices seem like things to force cohesion and team play amongst the players. Let alone seem like things that are force feeding the GM with adventuring hooks. I think the Moral Code seems too similar to the classic alignment trope of other RPGs. The V1 and V2 didn't have that since it was assumed in a post apocalyptic world moral codes would have to be flexible. Similarly the rule for the Big Dream seems really ambiguous with what could represent that "concrete action" for the GM to award extra XP during a session. This can be a judgement call that can lead to heated discussions at the table.
I sort of like they truncated the skills down to about 12 basic and core skill sets. because trying to fill out all the different skills could be complicated in both V1 and V2. At the same time, there is part of me that is missing the building of a typist company clerk who was shanghaied to be with a small fire team just before the last big push.
The rules for post session changing buddies, new moral code, and unit morale seem overly cumbersome and can cause confusion if there is a need for long term campaign with the same folks.


The mechanic of where you are in either Sweden or Poland and the "Intel" briefs leave some things lacking. If I source both V1 and V2, they provided both units that existed in certain locations and a map showing where folks were placed. As well as major points of interest where the players could go, avoid, or even be started in. It would be great to know those things as the starting adventure. Heck maybe even given some major NPCs in the region that the PCs could run across.

I think that the settlement tables should have been included into the encounters chapter. If not had lead the chapter on scenarios before going to those starter scenarios. They do an interesting bit of setup for the GM, and really seem like stuff that the GM should be using prior to the gaming session. Since its about 6-9 rolls at the table to help define a settlement.

I haven't fully looked at the combat, injury rules yet. I have still been trying to digest it all after sending an email to get the download link since FL never sent me an email about either the Alpha or the Beta being released even as I was a backer.

[Tegyrius]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"?

Yes, the former seem appropriate labels for those who are determined to destroy any material that doesn't meet their personal standard for what T2k "should be." This is especially apt when they are unable or unwilling to articulate that standard.

As for the latter - the point may have been missed for the context, but the toxicity problem extends far beyond this thread, and has for some years.

It's us older players who's kept the game alive for the better part of three decades since GDW closed their doors - we've kept it going longer than GDW even existed! In my case I've been involved since 1984, the very year 1st ed was published, 37 years ago.
Now given that, shouldn't WE have some say in how the game is written and developed into the future?
Besides FL spending money to buy the name, what right have they to toss out everything that's come before, declare even GDW's materials a "non-canon" and attempt to force feed us a substandard product?
They've had ample opportunity to consult with the wider community, but I can understand why they've tried to keep their pool of advisors relatively small. However, as one of those who was invited to provide input to their draft even before the kickstarter and Alpha release it was abundantly clear they weren't all that interested in anything that didn't fit what THEY wanted. Almost nothing said by those not on their payroll was acknowledged, let alone incorporated.

Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.

- C.

[mpipes]

Y
Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.
- C.

I agree 100% with a bit of a caveat. When I company purchases a license and solicits funds based on representation that it is producing a new edition - as was done here - said fans of the GDW games are ENTITLED to have expectations that the company in fact plans to produce a new edition. NOT A WHOLE NEW THING WITH NO RELATION TO THE PREVIOUS EDITIONS. All FL has done is produce a WWIII role playing game with their Year Zero system, add in a wholly new background, and slapped a "Twilight:2000" title onto it.

Why get a license you may ask, well, typically in this sort of situation, it is to sucker in fans of the previous edition to buy the product. I won't go so far as to call it fraud, but this definitely looks like a bait and switch marketing gambit, which while not illegal is not wholly ethical either.

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially. As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

I hope FL makes money and it is a success, I really do, but I doubt they will get much, if any, from me.

And I still wonder, why even bother getting a license!!!!

[Raellus]

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially.

If said "help" reads like the critique below, then how can one be surprised- let alone offended- that it was ignored/rejected?

As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

Setting aside the issues of tone and presentation for a moment, does the above assessment of the v4 content still/equally apply to the Beta?

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, seems like the problem is immediately obvious just from reading that one paragraph. They didn't imply that, you inferred it. You read something that was never written and pinned a lot of false hopes on it. No wonder it doesn't live up to your expectations. But that's not on FL.

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

[Olefin]

I'm real curious what some of you guys were expecting.

I don't think it's a big shock that almost no RPG today is built on the foundation of the old GDW games. They had some interesting systems (certainly for character generation), but not a lot of elegance in those rules and not much you could push them before they were completely unwieldy. They're great reference (with a grain of salt), but I feel no nostalgia at all for the task of actually gaming with them. The "instant gratification" I am looking for (as a '90s gamer) is a system that is intuitive, quick, rich in theme tied to mechanics, and detailed enough to generate great, specific stories.

Hmm lets see - what we were expecting was Twilight 2000 - you know the game and timeline we have been playing since the mid-1980's - my first campaign started three months after the game was released for instance as soon as my GM got his copy and digested it enough to be able to run it - and that it would be faithful to the timeline and the things that made the game so good that it survived not being supported or having new things released for it for nearly 21 years with a lot of faithful adherents

In other words what we expected was a reboot that was faithful enough to still be recognizable but with some changes - i.e. what they did to Star Trek for instance - it was still Starfleet, Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al but slightly different - and thus it was accepted.

This is a rip it up and start over reboot - its like trying to reboot Star Trek and its Earthfleet, no Federation, no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy and telling the fans to accept it because at least you get some Star Trek. That is 100% not the right way to do it.

There is a great History Channel show right now called The Food That Built America - the Coke episode is a perfect example of what is going on here - Coke tried to fight Pepsi and was losing - so what did they do - they put out a new version of Coke that was supposed to be superior to the old version - and no one liked it - and it almost killed Coca Cola. They only saved the company by bringing back the old version. Lets hope that V4 doesnt turn out to be the New Coke of Twilight 2000 - a reboot that is supposedly going to bring a whole new bunch of customers - but in doing so manages to lose the fan base that kept the game alive for nearly 25 years after GDW died.

[Olefin]

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

That is 100% how it was communicated to me by Marc Miller when it started. That this would be either a continuation or revamp of the V2.2 timeline that would honor what had come before it. Unfortunately that is not what we got.

[Olefin]

FYI for those trying to access the size of the T2K audience out there as it currently stands

Both the Korean and East Africa Sourcebooks have over 500 downloads each since they were released, one in 2017, the other in 2018, and Rooks Gambit isnt far behind

The Pacific Northwest module has also sold very well since its release in February

And the fanzine downloads give an even better idea of the size of the current T2K fan base

As of Feb 20, 2021 the fanzine downloads were as follows - and are probably larger by now

No. 1 Grand Totals: 1890
No. 2 Grand Totals: 1874
No. 3 Grand Totals: 1096

[raketenjagdpanzer]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"?

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.

[mpipes]

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

I will be more blunt....they actively solicited talent from the forum to work with them with assurances, perhaps a bit vague on particulars, that FL was writing a fully compatible version - rules and history both consistent with the originals save tweaking here and there as well as some revision. Heck, it was in their promotional materials while soliciting funds! Now that may be fraud, depending on what was said and if there are any contracts.

Some of the more vocal critics here were out and out told that FL was considering having them write modules for it, as FL milked their gaming skills and insights to help them draft the Alpha. The project was going to be an update; not a total reboot with a grossly different timeline and wholly different game mechanics. People were point-blanked lied too, and they are not unjustified having hard feelings over it or in being upset.

Again, maybe not illegal but definitely shady and unethical; especially by duping some to spend HOURS of their time trying to aid FL efforts to produce a good game. And when said Alpha draft came out - nothing was as had been represented.

Anyway, as I said, I hope FL does well. I am sure they would have done LOTS better if they had done what they said they would do - and I hope they get continually reminded of that should this venture fail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.
Oh yes, I am well aware of what actual toxic behaviour on a forum looks like. One only has to visit some D&D, Battletech, Vampire and even Traveller forums to see that what has occurred here is people getting hot blooded and other people getting their feelings hurt because someone does not share their vision of what the game should be (and no, I am NOT leaving myself out of those categories)
This forum is actually pretty damned tame compared to some of the forums for those games listed above. I'm aware of arguments on some of those forums that have continued over a course of years. And the "version wars", oh my god! The things hurled back and forth on some of those threads would make any grumpy old curmudgeon feel like a puppy in the company of feral dogs - it's more a bloodfeud than a disagreement!

[Legbreaker]

...the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion.

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad? Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

[swaghauler]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"?

I agree with you 100% here. We are supposed to have "Free Speech" in the West. That includes Speech where people may feel hurt or angry because of it. But then again, Speech we all agree with doesn't NEED protecting. I DO NOT believe in "safe spaces." If you don't like what I said, give me your opinion back. I'm a big boy... I can take it. But censoring Speech because "someone may find it offensive" is a cardinal sin in real America.

[swaghauler]

Oh yes, I am well aware of what actual toxic behaviour on a forum looks like. One only has to visit some D&D, Battletech, Vampire and even Traveller forums to see that what has occurred here is people getting hot blooded and other people getting their feelings hurt because someone does not share their vision of what the game should be (and no, I am NOT leaving myself out of those categories)
This forum is actually pretty damned tame compared to some of the forums for those games listed above. I'm aware of arguments on some of those forums that have continued over a course of years. And the "version wars", oh my god! The things hurled back and forth on some of those threads would make any grumpy old curmudgeon feel like a puppy in the company of feral dogs - it's more a bloodfeud than a disagreement!

LOL! If you want to start a REAL FLAME WAR, just go over to a D&D5e Forum and post some "houserules" to make it more "gritty..." Like requiring an ARCANA PROFICIENCY Check to cast Spells or reducing the Proficiency Bonus to +1 thru +5.
I once posted that I changed Wisdom to Willpower because I saw that stat as a measure of "mental strength" while I viewed Wisdom as the sum of a PLAYER'S own experience. Not only did this start a flame war, but I made the mistake of quoting Mark Twain's "Wisdom is the product of Experience... and Experience is often the product of poor choices." Some poster there told me she was an English and Literature teacher and that Mark Twain was a racist and no longer an acceptable reference to use. Then she reported me for hate speech!

[Olefin]

Well I got to read the Beta and the whole reinforcement in 1998 remains problematical to me. The US moves 500,000 men and their equipment at the end of the year in 1998.

Oh so first off you need a crap load of oil, planes and ships to move 500,000 men even if they are all light infantry and smaller vehicles. Then it states that the US after the big air and sea battle with the Soviets doesn’t have the wherewithal to reinforce or even supply their forces in Europe.

I see several issues with this

One if even only 20 percent of the ships and planes survived that still leaves a lot of shipping left for supplies to be sent to Europe. And the Players Manual says the USN still has lots of ships still operational. If they have operational ships they can support the Army and Marines in Europe with supplies even if they had to use destroyers, frigates and anything else still afloat as cargo ships.

Two - where did the Soviets after almost two years of war with the US and its allies have enough ships and long range fighters to seriously be able to still battle the USN and the USAF.

Three - if the big reinforcement got to Europe in late 1998 why didnt the US attack in 1999 - the whole year goes by with no big attack?


Four - if even only 200,000 men got over that is enough to rebuild almost every US division back to full strength (alberit with light infantry and mortars and the like) - 500,000 would actually be enough to form new units let alone bring the old ones back to strength

So is FL trying to say that the Soviets somehow destroyed most of the reinforcements on their war to Europe? With a minimal fleet and almost no Air Force left? Keep in mind you need long range fighters to go after those air transports if they are in mid-Ocean. But this isnt Red Storm Rising where they took Iceland. Are they trying to say that somehow most of the US reinforcements died in the battle against the Soviet Navy and Air Force - if so that is farcical - its literally a huge deux ex Machina to somehow explain the US not winning the war.

Those half million men make it to Europe the war is over. Period. Not unless the Soviets went totally nuclear in 1999. And that isnt in the timeline.

Its another example of how badly written the timeline still is compared to V1 and V2.2.

Frankly they should have just added Sweden to the older timelines - which they could have done easily - and then concentrated on game mechanics. The current timeline is completely shot thru with holes. And it still doesnt explain where the Greeks, Turks, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese are - i.e. about half the NATO members.

[Legbreaker]

Then she reported me for hate speech!

Totally unsurprised. You committed the treasonous offence of "wrongthink"!

[Legbreaker]

Frankly they should have just added Sweden to the older timelines - which they could have done easily...

And that I believe is exactly what Lurken is working on for his own publication (with some divergences from canon, but nothing TOO significant all in all, and certainly nothing that renders previous products unusable).

[Olefin]

Comments on the Player Manual

The Beta only still has Poles, Swedes, Americans and Soviets? No British, no Germans, no Czechs, Hungarians, French, Belgians, etc.

And there are German and Dutch troops in Poland - but the Players Manual lacks information on how to play them as player characters.

What the heck? How hard is it after this was pointed out six months ago to add basic information on how to create British, German and Dutch player characters? There is literally a ton of information in the various V1 and V2.2 books on how to create those characters including a whole sourcebook on the British.

That just flabbergasts me - they mention that you can play campaigns in the UK or Germany but have no mention at all of how to create German or UK characters except as civilians??!!! And there are German and Dutch troops in Poland - and there is no option to play them as player characters?

Free League is supposedly creating the game for the T2K community and ignoring huge areas of the existing fan base who are in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands or who play characters from those areas? Let alone they finally bring France into the war as a fighting force - and then no French player characters? Or Belgians who for sure would be fighting with NATO.

I am sorry but that is a monstrous miss - are they trying screw this up?? I mean James Langham is one of the people advising them on the game - how the heck are there no UK player characters?? Why not have a simple blurb that the final release will have information on playing characters for the UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belguim, etc.. Heck all they would have to do is copy the relevant section in the V2.2 and make some mods. But there is nothing that indicates (after months of input) that there are going to be those other characters.

And dont give me any garbage about the original V1 release lacking in information about other nationalities. This is a reboot of a franchise that has all that information in it - all you have to do is take it and modify it. I did it for the Rwandans, Kenyans, LRA and others in my African Sourcebook by using the V2.2 book (look at pages 69-71 of the final release version). And all I had was me, myself and I when I did it - not a whole team of game developers.

[mpipes]

Does Beta even mention Asia or the Persian Gulf?

Its supposed to be WORLD WAR 3; not the Napoleonic Wars round 2 in 2000 with those upstart Americans meddling after all.

As for the Soviet Navy, and please correct me if I am wrong, their doctrinal take was sea denial for 60 days. Their goal was to battle NATO for 60 days stimming the sea bridge. Once 60 days were up, they were strictly defensive with whatever tidbits of a navy the had left used purely as a defensive force for the SLBMs. No chasing after convoys or US battlegroups; strictly defense for the SLBMs with whatever was left.

If I am right about that, then I am with Olefin and the Soviets really knew that if they did not win within 30 days, it was not going to be pretty.

As I have said in other post, the Soviets knew their logistic and force limitations. They knew that a slugfest going on for a year or more against a united NATO was a disaster for them. I think GDW designers knew it as well, hence a timeline where war rages on multiple fronts and each side could survive the best "punches" of the other because NATO was splintered, the Soviets had ally issues, and the forces were so stretched.

Thus, the nukes start flying when NATO breaches "Mother Russia," as most military thinking believes the Russian's would. They have no intentions of the carnage of WWII repeating itself, and frankly, I have to agree with their beliefs and doctrine on that central, guiding principle that affects every level of their governmental and military doctrines.

A straight up united NATO v. USSR all alone war would end within 30 to 60 days or go nuclear, which - drum role please - probably ain't happening over an upstart Poland and a scrappy Sweden. Everyone is going to call game over, and go back to their original lines.

So again, how can Russia stop the reinforcements? Again, I sincerely think Russia knew they could only reliably disrupt reinforcements for 60 days. After that, the North Atlantic is a NATO lake, just as we knew the Baltic and the Black Sea were Russian lakes (ok, maybe not the Baltic, there it would be a near equal contest).

[Rockwolf66]

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad? Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

Understatement of the Year. The Timeline makes V2.2 look like Shakespeare and Non-Political.

I mean they seem to have gone out of their way to make the US president look like a warmongering idiot. Then they completely changed the reason that Milgov does not take orders from Civgov. Just so much garbage.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Shakespeare wasn't exactly non-political, mind. (https://thegreatthinkers.org/shakespeare-and-politics/introduction/)

As for the idea of the US being led by warmongering idiots, that is the way you've often come across to non-Americans, particularly three of the last four Republican Presidents. Not that the Democrat ones have been much better.

[Lurken]

Does Beta even mention Asia or the Persian Gulf?

Its supposed to be WORLD WAR 3; not the Napoleonic Wars round 2 in 2000 with those upstart Americans meddling after all.

I don't they have specified anything elsewhere other than the Israeli-Arab war and the PRC-USSR alliance? Don't it in front of me.

[sellanraa]

Here's a question regarding my biggest disappointment in 4e: character creation - specifically the lack of lifepaths and skills.

Is anyone who is thinking about jumping to 4e going to mod those rules anymore to add a bit more depth? The little I've pondered, it seems like to adjust the skill list a bit going from say, 12 to 20 or something would just break everything else down.

As far as the backstory, I agree it's lacking and ignores most of the rest of the world, but I think that's easy to ignore and adapt and they even include a note indicating such to empower anyone who is hesitant to make those kinds of modifications.

[sellanraa]

Comments on the Player Manual

The Beta only still has Poles, Swedes, Americans and Soviets? No British, no Germans, no Czechs, Hungarians, French, Belgians, etc.

And there are German and Dutch troops in Poland - but the Players Manual lacks information on how to play them as player characters.


This sort of relates to more character creation concerns. I suppose it's a calculation they made that they have enough of a Swedish base of interest to shift that focus, but agree that it ignores the narrative and fan community that may exist elsewhere. More fundamentally to your point too - it wouldn't have been that hard to add a few pages about this.

Hopefully they will in some sort of supplement that will follow.

[Spartan-117]

This sort of relates to more character creation concerns. I suppose it's a calculation they made that they have enough of a Swedish base of interest to shift that focus, but agree that it ignores the narrative and fan community that may exist elsewhere. More fundamentally to your point too - it wouldn't have been that hard to add a few pages about this.

Hopefully they will in some sort of supplement that will follow.

+1

FL is a business, not a charity and not a state-owned enterprise. They aren't going to release everything at once. They likely want what all businesses want - a continuing profitable revenue stream.

Yes, they could go pick over everything in v1.0 and v2.2 and pack that all in one book, but we'd likely be grousing about the cost of such a book* and how long it would take to be ready for publication.

A few of you have really have high expectations for what would be released in the FL boxed set for what is equivalent to $23.50 USD in 1984 (alternately 14.00 USD for the Digital Only edition, which wasn't an option back then).

The computation here is 498 SEK = 59.41 USD. Grab a handy U.S. inflation calculator available here https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ and enter 1984, 23.50 USD and you get 59.91 cent. Close enough for our purposes.

I'm curious - does anyone know what the price of the boxed set in 1984 was? The one where you got to play in one campaign location (Poland) with only 19 careers (all military).

Adding the RDF campaign location back in 198X cost money. Helicopter stats in FCK cost money. Yes, there's a lot of stuff from prior editions to grab from, but you didn't get it all for $25 on a CDROM in the 80's and 90's.

Leaving aside the mechanics and backstory that reasonable people can disagree on, I think, what you are getting for $60 USD is a bit more than you got back in 1984 for a similar product.

*or maybe you expect all that extra work and intellectual property to be free? Простите товарищ, коммунизм никогда не работал.

[Tegyrius]

I'm curious - does anyone know what the price of the boxed set in 1984 was? The one where you got to play in one campaign location (Poland) with only 19 careers (all military).

All American military, no less.

My 1e box doesn't have a printed MSRP that I can find. My 2e box's printed MSRP is $24.

- C.

[Olefin]

All American military, no less.

My 1e box doesn't have a printed MSRP that I can find. My 2e box's printed MSRP is $24.

- C.

Thats about right as to the cost - I have older modules that still have the price tags on them.

And yes the original offering was an All American military - but this is a reboot. Thus all the original information ever published is out there for them and they can use it all.

Or should Star Wars have been rebooted using only the first movie and ignore the next two. Or Star Trek been rebooted using on the original pilot episode and not the one with Kirk in it and ignore the entire series as well as all the follow up ones? (Notice that Star Trek Beyond used material from Star Trek Enterprise in it and made direct references to the "Giant Green Hand" from the original series")

So trying to give FL a break citing the original boxed V1 focus only on the Americans as a comparison is non-sensical. Sorry but they have literally dozens of modules, sourcebooks, three Version guides (and thats not counting 2013), Challenge magazine articles, you name it - let alone four books released since 2017 including your own.

Also the effort it would take to add the othe ranks and armies for player characters would take them at most, given all the information out there, about a day, maybe less. If I can do it, ON MY OWN, using the rank and Army guides in V2.2, for the forces in Africa in a couple of hours then they can sure as heck do it.

So lets not give them an excuse for shoddy worksmanship and a massive omit of a very large part of the T2K player base.

Oh and by the way Tomas himself told me there would be UK, German and Dutch player character information in the initial release - so where is it?

[sellanraa]

Speaking of - that's one great thing about the new edition. In the back they have 1e and 2e conversion guides, so we don't have to rely on them to do the work of some of this.

[Spartan-117]

Speaking of - that's one great thing about the new edition. In the back they have 1e and 2e conversion guides, so we don't have to rely on them to do the work of some of this.

Very nice. I glanced over them but since they aren't applicable at this point, I didn't explore them in depth. I do have myriad v1 and 2.2 character in text files, so being able to convert will be useful for me later on.

[Olefin]

Very nice. I glanced over them but since they aren't applicable at this point, I didn't explore them in depth. I do have myriad v1 and 2.2 character in text files, so being able to convert will be useful for me later on.

Except the conversion guides dont offer what is needed for playing the other nation's militaries characters unless they are basically saying that its all the same as V1 and V2.2

If thats true then why even detail out the American forces - they have been massively covered in earlier guides.

[Raellus]

Serious question- how hard would it be to generate an American military PC and then do some gear and backstory adjustments and call him a UK military PC? Or US to German? Or Polish to Czech?

-

[Ewan]

Serious question- how hard would it be to generate an American military PC and then do some gear and backstory adjustments and call him a UK military PC? Or US to German? Or Polish to Czech?

-

Honest answer probably not hard, just convert the US military rank to the equivalent nationality (this might help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_enlisted)

The book gives you the G3 and SLR (FN FAL) but you don't have the SA80. You also have some British and German vehicles which could be used.

[Olefin]

Serious question- how hard would it be to generate an American military PC and then do some gear and backstory adjustments and call him a UK military PC? Or US to German? Or Polish to Czech?

-

If you are an experienced GM or player and have the old V2.2 guide and the British sourcebook and have the NATO and Warsaw Pact books you can do it without a lot of effort.

But if you are a brand new player and GM - ie the so called target audience to bring lots of new people on board - pretty damn hard unless you want to do a lot of research on ranks, weapons, equipment, vehicles and other things.

It’s one thing if you are an old hand and have all the older books - it’s quite another if all you have is the Beta - which lacks basically just about everything to do the job right - unless you don’t mind a half ass not even close to reality

[Olefin]

FYI check out the comments on the Beta - the UK players are not happy

So basically Tomas ignored one of the biggest group of existing players that there are

And his comments earlier to me that I posted shows he has no concept of what role the UK played in NATO - ie he created the Soviet Sea Lion to give UK characters something to do - excuse me? Ever heard of the British Army contribution to NATO?

[Amagi]

Imagination has always been used by players and GMs alike.

Serious question- how hard would it be to generate an American military PC and then do some gear and backstory adjustments and call him a UK military PC? Or US to German? Or Polish to Czech?

The vision.

"The first edition of Twilight: 2000 was an iconic game for me back in the '80s, and we are humbled and honored to work with Marc Miller and Game Designers' Workshop to bring a new edition to life. The original game was really ahead of its time. Our goal is to build on the amazing sandbox survival gameplay and develop it further, making it more accessible using the tools of modern game design,"*says lead game designer Tomas Härenstam.

Build on and develop.

Serious question: did it?

[Olefin]

Imagination has always been used by players and GMs alike.



The vision.

.

Build on and develop.

Serious question: did it?

Serious answer - no it didn’t - the old game included the whole world and information on all the countries in Europe except for a few exceptions - like Italy for instance - this one ignores most of NATO most of the Eastern European countries and is rife with contradictions

Like no way home for players and no supplies - but then the USN still has a significant number of operational ships in the seas around Europe - last I heard you can pack a bunch of troops or supplies in ships like destroyers - the Japanese and British did it quite well in WWII as did the Germans. Did these guys even take a simple course in history - heard of Dunkirk or the Tokyo Express or the German invasion of Norway?

We had a name for work like this - it’s called shoddy.

[Olefin]

Honest answer probably not hard, just convert the US military rank to the equivalent nationality (this might help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_enlisted)

The book gives you the G3 and SLR (FN FAL) but you don't have the SA80. You also have some British and German vehicles which could be used.

Yup you can create a half ass character that doesnt have the right equipment, with no background for their army, navy and Air Force - but good luck doing that with the Dutch, the French, the Turks, the Belgians, etc.. since they were basically ignored.

The reality is - why should we? This is basic game design and also basic business sense. You are trying to appeal to a worldwide audience and then you limit your characters to four nations?

Lets be honest - any actual game designer who ignores so much of the target audience is either being lazy or ignorant or both. And I have done this before myself for my module. I gave people enough information to build Kenyan, Rwandan and LRA characters as well as Somali and PARA. It didnt take long - I used the V2.2 book and some basic research.

I could have put all the information in the Players Manual that was needed for all the different countries in about two days of work and that would include ranks, background, weapons, vehicles you name it. They had months to do this - and didnt. I did it for my module and so did Raellus on his. And we arent paid game designers. They were paid to make a good game with all the info needed - and its not going to add a ton of pages to do it. So yes they have a bottom line - and ignoring a lot of potential customers is a pretty stupid way to run a business. Not when the work needed to properly appeal to them takes so little time.

And frankly FL needs to be called to task on this and have a lot of us say we gave you our money - either deliver on your promises and do a good job or give the money back and call it a day. Its going to take a lot of work by them to fix a screwed up product later after they have turned off a lot of people. It may mean they only make 20 percent profit off the money they raised instead of 22 percent. Its worth it - go ask Coke and Ford and Schlitz about what screwed up product releases can do for the bottom line.

[Raellus]

I've been giving the discussion on this thread a lot of thought. I realized that some people in the community are literally grieving T2k. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' 5 Stages of Grieving are...

1. Denial: "They can't be doing this to T2k!"
2. Anger: "Those duplicitous so-and-sos ruined my beloved T2k!"
3. Bargaining: "I could accept v4 if X,Y, & Z were changed to my liking."
4. Depression: "T2k is forever ruined. It'll never be good again."
5. Acceptance: "v4 is what it is. It's not for me, but I hope others enjoy it. Maybe I can even cherry pick a couple of pieces I do like. Or not. Anyway, I've still got v1-2.2/2013, so life goes on."

I can understand why some of those who had some personal connection to v4 (i.e. consulting, playtesting, what-have-you) may have extra cause to be bitter. Being ignored and cast aside must have hurt.

I realize that the grieving process is different for everyone. It may take others longer to move through the various phases. I moved on to stage 5 a long time ago, but it's unfair of me to expect others to hurry up and get there.

What seems pointless to me is spending so much time and energy trying to convince others that there is no Phase 5, and camping out in Phases 1-4. But again, it's unfair of me to expect others to grieve just like me.

I think now that I was wrong to try to push people to move past 1-4. That seems to have entrenched some folks even deeper in those unpleasant phases.

If some of you need to continue to vent, go ahead. I hope that you can do so with the intent of moving through the denial, anger, bargaining, and depression stages to get to a place of peace.

-

[Olefin]

I've been giving the discussion on this thread a lot of thought. I realized that some people in the community are literally grieving T2k. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' 5 Stages of Grieving are...

1. Denial: "They can't be doing this to T2k!"
2. Anger: "Those duplicitous so-and-sos ruined my beloved T2k!"
3. Bargaining: "I could accept v4 if X,Y, & Z were changed to my liking."
4. Depression: "T2k is forever ruined. It'll never be good again."
5. Acceptance: "v4 is what it is. It's not for me, but I hope others enjoy it. Maybe I can even cherry pick a couple of pieces I do like. Or not. Anyway, I've still got v1-2.2/2013, so life goes on."

I can understand why some of those who had some personal connection to v4 (i.e. consulting, playtesting, what-have-you) may have extra cause to be bitter. Being ignored and cast aside must have hurt.

I realize that the grieving process is different for everyone. It may take others longer to move through the various phases. I moved on to stage 5 a long time ago, but it's unfair of me to expect others to hurry up and get there.

What seems pointless to me is spending so much time and energy trying to convince others that there is no Phase 5, and camping out in Phases 1-4.

I think now that I was wrong to try to push people to move past 1-4. That seems to have entrenched some folks even deeper in those phases.

If some of you need to continue to vent, go ahead. I hope that you can do so with the intent of moving through the denial, anger, bargaining, and depression stages to get to a place of peace.

-

I am not grieving at all - the new version is shoddy and slapdash and an insult to many of the long term gamers. As for acceptance - ha ha ha ha ha. Go tell that bullcrap about the stages of grieving to Coca Cola when they introducted New Coke - the people who tried this tact at Coke all got fired and they brought back Classic Coke and saved the company

[Olefin]

So back to reality after the little jog into psychiatry

How do you fix the Players Manual - you dont have to describe every armed force and nationality that is in the world. You have a base play area that is Poland, Sweden, northern Czechoslovakia, eastern Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland and western Russia

So what do you need to add to make the PM complete for the base set up

One page blurbs describing the Germans, British, Dutch, Czechs, Danes, Belgians, Finnish and Norwegian armed forces and how to create their characters. Dont need a huge background just the basic info that that was given about the other four.

Add equipment for each army including their self propelled artillery and recon vehicles

Then add a simple one to at most two page general concept, as was done in the V2.2 to describe the Hungarians, French, Romanians, Turks, and other nations that might be there but who wont be described in detail for now.

Now you have the armed forces detailed that you would 100 percent meet in the areas desribed in the setup and havent ignore anyone.

And it would take less than a dozen pages and two days to do it.

[Lurken]

Serious question- how hard would it be to generate an American military PC and then do some gear and backstory adjustments and call him a UK military PC? Or US to German? Or Polish to Czech?

-

Quite easily enough. As people have pointed out. Each GM could guesstimate the practical differences in gear, vehicles, basic training, what sort of training each route should have and so on. It is what made v2 fun, each country had various variants, good and bad.

But this is not Bethesda, that is expected to release incomplete games that are later fixed with mods. I mean, it's Bethesda.

If it is easy, then we should be able to expect it in the base game? Especially for the featured countries, at least?

[Olefin]

Quite easily enough. As people have pointed out. Each GM could guesstimate the practical differences in gear, vehicles, basic training, what sort of training each route should have and so on. It is what made v2 fun, each country had various variants, good and bad.

But this is not Bethesda, that is expected to release incomplete games that are later fixed with mods. I mean, it's Bethesda.

If it is easy, then we should be able to expect it in the base game? Especially for the featured countries, at least?

Hell yes it should be expected - especially from a company that has all the base material to do it.

And Frank Frey and James Langham as consultants

[Raellus]

I don't want to be accused (again) of trying to stifle free speech, but this thread is kind of a dumpster fire now, and the discussion has drifted miles from the thread's original, stated purpose.

How would y'all feel about separate threads about v4- one dedicated to complaining (where folks that so choose can trash it all they like) and another for only constructive discussion re rules, setting, etc.?

-

[Spartan-117]

Kinda seems like we will need one for New Coke as well. :rolleyes:

[Olefin]

Well Spartan is being his usual self - course what I am talking about probably went over his head.

Hmm so let’s see Raellus who is going to be the judge of what is a complaint and what is constructive criticism? Since apparently most of those who have constructive criticism are getting called insults for giving such criticism. And yes saying they could easily add the other nationalities and armies and not having them there is dumb is constructive - ie how it should be improved.

And we aren’t grieving - we are trying to head off a train wreck that we can see coming. Great artwork doesn’t equate to great RPG games. And we don’t want to see the flame we kept going for 25 years snuffed out by an inferior product.

[Rainbow Six]

How would y'all feel about separate threads about v4- one dedicated to complaining (where folks that so choose can trash it all they like) and another for only constructive discussion re rules, setting, etc.?

-
If people just want to moan and complain can we set that up on a separate area of the forum so that those of us who are fed up reading the same complaints / accusations / baseless allegations of political bias over and over again don’t have to be bothered by them?

Thanks

[mpipes]

Oh for Pete's sake.

Is it really so overwrought to ask a company, on a forum devoted to its "product" with hundreds of fans wanting to spend money on said "product", to actually produce and sell what was promised on that forum.

In effect, what we have here is a company that bought the right to sell "pears" and went to the "pears" fan base and supporters promising they were going to sell "pears." Company solicited money, which fans invested. Company solicited talent, which responded by donating hours of time to grow "pears." When the time came, and the company rolled out the product - IT WAS NOT PEARS. Instead, it was "spinach." Now I don't know about most people, but when I am all excited about the bushel of "pears" promised and instead get a bale of "spinach," I have a right to get upset and point out that this is not the "pears" as promised, but instead is "spinach." Furthermore, I should be allowed to point exactly why the bale of "spinach" is in fact not
"pears" and log my complaints among my fellow "pear" lovers, who like me, really don't like the "spinach" that was offered up.

In a somewhat different analogy, don't go promising a Harley and instead produce a Vespa. That will get people upset. Some perhaps violently so if they were induced to invest in a Harley and instead received a Vespa (depending of course on the MC they belong to).

In short, FL DID NOT deliver what it promised to forum members. And lets be honest, forum members were induced to help on this project and were sold a bill of goods. There is no 4th addition here. It is a game FL came up with and slapped a "Twilight 2000" moniker on. NDAs are in effect, so effectively many are muzzled, but you can be sure many forum members feel DUPED. And they are not happy. And they are letting it been known what the problems are as they see them. AND most important, they have every right to do so under the circumstances and even, dare I utter the word, BE UPSET.

All that said, the game looks professional and uses mechanics popular with many (though I believe GDWs are much better). The artwork and graphics are a selling point! Very good. The background is atrociously badly written in my opinion, but at least gives a player a background setting forth where they are and their predicament. FL at least succeeds on these points, so at least they may be able to attract some fans despite the flaws being aired out. However, older players with more than a cursory knowledge of history, NATO, Russia, and the PACT, are going to have a decidedly different view of the background. and for that reason it will suffer. Virtually anyone with even a minimal degree of knowledge as to the doctrines and abilities of the belligerents will laugh themselves silly and likely move on; its that bad. Does FL really want that? Or are they willing to listen, AND FOR GAWD'S SAKE, hire consultants that really understand military matters and listen to them.

[Olefin]

Well said Mpipes!

[Rainbow Six]

If anyone feels duped maybe they should just ask for their money back (presuming they backed it in the first place).

I believe at least one person has already said they got a refund.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Olefin]

And people need to be honest on here if they are working with FL on releases or have a business relationship with them. That kind of information needs to be taken into account as part of their responses. That is directly applicable to how this discussion is being framed. That’s like having a discussion on fossil fuels and not telling people you work for the oil companies.

[Olefin]

I have had my say and I asked for my money back. So will see what the future holds.

[Tegyrius]

If some of you need to continue to vent, go ahead. I hope that you can do so with the intent of moving through the denial, anger, bargaining, and depression stages to get to a place of peace.

(Snipped most of the post for brevity.)

Your point is well-taken, Rae, but I'm not sure it's entirely applicable. Or, rather, I feel grief is somewhat misplaced. T2k isn't dead. Free League isn't sending edition police to anyone's house to seize their first, second, or (for the three people who liked it) 2013 materials. The old books still work just fine.

See previous points, made by various correspondents and quickly forgotten or ignored, regarding the potential for 4th edition to draw unsatisfied new players to the earlier editions and thereby to this forum. I don't think it's entirely unlikely. It's happened with a few 2013 players over the years since the demise of the 93GS forums, and I understand that Cyberpunk Red has been bringing new players to the CP2020 community over the last few months. There's a similar return to older Shadowrun editions occurring thanks to the fan backlash over SR6, too.

I don't want to be accused (again) of trying to stifle free speech, but this thread is kind of a dumpster fire now, and the discussion has drifted miles from the thread's original, stated purpose.

If people want a forum with active and alert moderators, they should be prepared for those mods to, on occasion, take action that looks like "stifling free speech" from a certain perspective. That is the role of the moderator, after all.

Our American correspondents would also do well to remember that the First Amendment applies only government suppression of free speech. Private entities such as social media platforms, Free League, and even Kato and his mods are well within their rights to censor, delete, admonish, and exile according to the community standards they set. Once again, something about the value of words for which no money has been exchanged...

How would y'all feel about separate threads about v4- one dedicated to complaining (where folks that so choose can trash it all they like) and another for only constructive discussion re rules, setting, etc.? -

It's not a democracy, Rae, it's a dictatorship with Kato at the top and you as his Chief Injustice (or perhaps Secretary of Offense, or pimp hand). If you deem it necessary, you don't have to ask permission or get consensus before taking enforcement action. That's what the little "Administrator" label means, last I checked. ;)

- C.

[unipus]

I would certainly be in favor of some mod clean up action and/or a "separate but equal" bitch-about-FL-over-here thread.

I came here to respond to an actual discussion of the actual rules, but then found that, as usual, it's been drowned under 20+ posts since then of continued hysteria all the way up to and including "free speech" and "fraud" complaints. LOL. It's equal parts funny and sad, but it definitely has done the job of preventing an actual productive conversation about the game.