Sadly, it may go no farther than the "whiteboard exercise" it is right now. My players have read 4e and come to the conclusion they do NOT like it for Twilight2000/MERC because it is too simple and coarse for the kind of gritty fights and adventures they thrive on. This is ironic because they desperately want to try FORBIDDEN LANDS over D&D 5e... and I agree with them.

And for the record, my group has THREE Millenials and Two Gen Xers in it.

Oh, I DO look at rules from the perspective of "what do most people do in real situations." Both MYSELF and THREE of my players are COMBAT VETERANS and two of us have 20+ years in security and law enforcement. I personally have two shootouts under my belt (1 military, 1 LE) and more than 150 DOCUMENTED fights. I am willing to bet REAL MONEY, that my gaming table has more combat experience than Free League's entire design team. That's why I strive for more realism. My players will call Bullshit on any mechanics with are not realistic.

As a Gen X'er who played first edition Shadowrun, I would resent your implication that my generation can't handle complex games...

... but I'm too demotivated to care. ;)

- C.

I HAVE T2K13 in a DEAD TREE EDITION... I know you do complex. I still am pondering the possibility of going Dice Pool/Successes with T2K13. It could be very interesting!

Re 4e combat;
I like

• i like the simple, small numbers for hit capacity and damage done by weapons. Simple and elegant
• i like how with ammo dice, guns can use lots of ammo in a turn. Makes decisions like how many dice to use important, because it feels like the reloading option occurs more.
• and because you have to reload more, it means having enough ammo clips is important, not just boxes of loose ammo. it makes it feel like theres more decision making involved
• i wasnt sure to start with. but i think i like the maps and hex system. its been working well for me so far, better than i thought. and i like that using the maps, that range to target and weapon type has been having an impact on the game
• i like the inititative system, i like the homebrew initiative system mentioned earlier even better

I'm still running some scenarios and looking forward to sharing more likes and some dislikes as i get some more experience in.

Which homebrew initiative system, kc? (A few have been mooted on the forum.)

Were you satisfied with how Suppression and CUF worked out, for both PCs and OPFOR?

-

I don't like the randomness of a simple card draw.

I like this one from Omnipus(?). But i'm also still (home)brewing with some simple modifiers! Nothing concrete enough to share yet.

I've been running a PC through a few days march using solo rules. So i'm still checking I've got the rules right, plus checking some of the earlier 4E threads here and on the free league site.

I don't mind suppression rules but have the following comments so far;

• when a NPC is suppressed, i dont like that they automatcially go prone. By going prone they gain a negative to hit modifier in the next round i fire on them. So by suppressing them, i give myself a negative modifier in the next round. Feels counterintuitive.
• I've never been in combat. But in paintball or in RL combat i assume that if an NPC fails a CUF roll or is suppressed, they may "freeze" and stand still while still under fire, not sure what to do, and so be easier to hit. So maybe suppression could be "no actions able to be taken" and also "+2 to hit" because they freeze while standing
• From memory suppression only lasts for the current (5 second) round. So they miss a round, then rejoin the fight. Is this penalty enough? I wonder if a character should have to pass a CUF check to recover from suppression? Maybe with a +1 modifier per round until its passed.
• For example a PC is suppressed. In the next round they need to roll a 6+ on their CUF die. In the second round they need 6+ with a +1, then a +2, +3 untill they pass. So if it takes 3 rounds to pass a CUF after being suppressed, that feels realistic to me - under a hail of bullets it may take (3x5) 15 seconds to get back into the fight, yes?

Recon rolls for encounters
When you come across an encounter, players get to make a passive recon check to see if they see the encounter first. There are only a few modifiers (mostly around if you are in a vehicle or the enemy is in a vehicle), so i guess the ability to find the foe first is in the characters hands. But feels a bit too simplistic.

Having found the enemy, if the characters want to close the gap/range then there is an opposed roll for the characters to close the gap to "X" range. If the character succeeds, they close the range. I'd like a bit more direction around what happens if both succeed, 2 successes v 1 success and what happens if both sides fail (or roll a 1). So i'll be working on a bit more granularity there.

Non-combat checks
My PC was walking cross country to limit the amount of encounters they might have. But this led to some interesting other "tests".
Forced march meant a stamina check.
Cross country meant a navigation check (v survival skill) with failure meaning you get lost (enter wrong hex)
Hiking in the dark meant a survival check with failure meaning no progress is made.
If walking cross country at night i wonder if you have to roll twice v survival (once for cross country, once for being night time?)
To find a place to sleep at night meant a roll v survival skill
And to top it off, i had to roll v survival so as not to get cold.

Made me think running into a heavy machine gun crew might have been quicker than taking the back roads!

Specialist skills
When making a character up, how many specialist skills do your PCs get? I think the rule book suggests one? I've given my experience sniper 3, partly to balance out my PC being on his own behind enemy lines.

Survival Stuff
 

I kind of like that level of "crunch"- in principle, at least. I haven't really experienced it as a player or GM. though, so it's hard to say if I'd actually enjoy the IG application. In my own experience on both sides of the GM screen, that day-to-day survival stuff tends to get glossed over and I think that's kind of a shame. I've only ever played T2k in PbP, though, and only v1 and [mostly] v2.2, so those considerations might have a lot to do with this perception.

-

TOO Suppressed?
 

Here's a weird question re Suppression: Does it ever interfere with the withdrawal of OPFOR during combat? For example, let's say, as the Ref, you decide that the OPFOR has had enough and wants to bug out, but your PCs keep shooting and the enemy can't move because, according to the rules, they're Suppressed and can't act?

Is this a potential bug, or am I missing something in the rules? Obviously, as Ref, you can handle this however you like, but I'm curious about how the rules do, or how folks who have actually Ref'd 4e have.

-

Seems like a feature, not a bug to me. You don't always get to break contact. Sometimes it's a turkey shoot for one side or the other.

If you need a way to explain it, well, you can call it acute stress reaction, combat stress reaction, amygdala hijack, or any number of similar terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t84_QvbnIT0

I haven't had this situation occur but, if it did, then the PCs will eventually get to a point where they don't want to spend the ammo to suppress the enemy.

Additionally, I'd also consider the terrain and if there is a way for the enemy to move (probably crawl) without being observed then I would have that override any suppression effects.

I live in "outback" Australia, so role playing the travel, night, weather, sleeping out thing is something i love about T2K. I was just making comment that in doing so, the system in 4e allows it to happen, and that is has as much crunch as combat. If the rolls don't go your way, instead of suppressed, injured or killed you can end up fatigued, lost and stationary (inable to travel). In my mind it adds a lot of what makes T2K attractive to me, mood, challenge, isolation, self dependant survival. All good things.