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.

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).

"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.

Toxic Fandom
 

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?

-

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)

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You say Tomato, I Say Toxic
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

Ownership
 

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.

-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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! :)

Now back to our regularlly scheduled programming
 

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.

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.

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!!!!