Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes
OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.
<snip>
11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.
|
France sent agents to sink a Greenpeace ship in the harbour of a friendly nation to prevent the ship from protesting nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific - and this reboot timeline wants us to believe France would sit back and do nothing if someone dropped an actual nuclear warhead on them?
Ah yeah, NO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes
12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.
|
Unfortunately that will not happen. None of the things you suggest fit with their other Year Zero games and because this reboot is very firmly based on the Year Zero rules, it will not be changed.
The Year Zero rules suit the dungeon crawl style of the FL games philosophy so they are not going to change the design to suit the more sandbox style that 1st & 2nd and 2013 have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3catcircus
If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail? Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.
That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank? You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players? This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...
In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc.? Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity?
|
As I mentioned above, the Year Zero games all appear to me, to be based around dungeon crawling and the most minimal book-keeping that they can get away with.
You could be forgiven for calling FL's reboot as "Twilight: 2000 lite" but I think even that fails to recognise just how stripped back the Year Zero system is compared to what we expect from a game that has a central theme of surviving & rebuilding in the post-apocalypse of a global war.
The Year Zero rules seem to work well for Tales From The Loop but your characters in that game are children and adolescents. They haven't had the life experience to accumulate special skills and training so the generalized approach to handling Skill tasks works. But for a game where the characters are adults or older adolescents? Characters who have had years of schooling or time in the workplace and have years of acquired experience & knowledge?
The Year Zero rules are basic and to paraphrase one of the designers of the T2k reboot, they want to replicate the thrill of gunfights & car chases you see in movies - the Year Zero rules will work for this purpose. They don't want rules that are more sophisticated because they seem to view that as bogging down the gameplay.
The Year Zero rules are for all intents and purposes here, pulp action rules and just like I do not believe Savage Worlds rules work for Twilight: 2000, I don't believe any other pulp action rules set will work either.
And FL do actually have weapon cards but they seem to have no clear direction on how and what to produce. To illustrate what I mean, they devote several pages to weapons cards but some could be easily combined. There is no functional or physical difference between the Soviet manufactured SVD and the Polish manufactured SWD.
The SWD is a Polish made SVD, the names are different because one is in Russian and the other is in Polish... so why have two different weapons cards, one for each?
This is true for a number of the Polish weapons because they choose to have Soviet weapons cards, Swedish weapons cards, Polish weapons cards, US weapons cards and so on.
This seems like a good idea but in reality it's unnecessary duplication of information and a total waste of page space & development time - but it does give the impression on first glance that they have a lot of weapons in the book.