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.

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).

Better Late
 

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.

-

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.

Pour Grasse
 

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

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.

-

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

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.

Outsider Info
 

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 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 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....

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

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!!!

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Haters Gonna Hate
 

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.

-

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cannot agree more with your entire post.

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.

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.

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

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.