Design Discussion: Barriers to New Player Entry for T2k

[Tegyrius]

During the last six months of 4th Edition discussion, one of the points that has arisen occasionally is its potential (or lack thereof) to entice new players to the game line. This is one of my hopes for it because we are not a numerous fandom, nor are we growing any younger. I believe the fan base needs new blood and new thoughts for healthy discussion, ease of finding play groups, and the financial viability of future products.

Over the years, I've made several attempts to start T2k campaigns with various groups, using multiple editions. There has generally been low interest among parties who weren't already fans of the game, even from players who generally have high interest in trying new systems and settings.

By far, the greatest common factors driving disinterest among potential players is the game's military focus. Although civilian characters are technically possible, all published editions assume military protagonists. For players who lack military experience or subject matter expertise, this is often a turn-off. Some players are disinterested in playing a military-centric game due to cultural factors. Others express anxiety over being penalized for playing "incorrectly," whether with tactics or PC characterization.

A corollary to this is that most of my gaming friendships emerged from World of Darkness fandom, and thus my gaming circle is more diverse than the audience here. Several female gamers, gamers of color, and LGBTQ+ gamers have opined that T2k is not interesting because the setting lacks a place for PCs whose identities and experiences mirror their own (recall that during the era in which T2k takes place, LGBTQ+ folk were barred from U.S. military service).

(In T2k's defense for the latter issue, it has always featured female NPCs in leadership positions, including ground combat roles, and has never included mechanical penalties for female PCs. There's an interesting point here regarding outside perception vs. published canon.)

I'm curious as to what barriers other referees have encountered when attempting to recruit new groups. I'm also interested in poking at what tools can be created - whether official 4e products, changes intrinsic to a hypothetical 5e, or fan creations for previous editions - to help overcome these barriers and bring more players to the game.

- C.

[Olefin]

There have always been players of color and the openness to players of color and females - all you have to do is look at the original T2K box and first module. The Krakow module has a black US soldier and a female US soldier on the cover after all.

And considering the games time period - both when it was written and the time period it covers- the whole issue of transgender would not have been a consideration. That’s like saying where are the transgender soldiers in a WW2 recreation.

If anything T2k is a game that has always welcomed female players and characters. I would actually say it was ground breaking in that consideration as opposed to games like D&D that had limits for female characters that never appeared in any edition of T2K.

[Rainbow Six]

I can’t really comment on V1 (my experience of actually playing with V1 rules is fairly limited and my experience of character creation brings back memories of calculators and excel spreadsheets) but when it comes to V2, I’ve always found one of the challenges to be the character creation system.In my experience it’s heavily biased against creating civilian characters who posses a skillset that’s useful in game terms, particularly if you have someone in your group who wants to play an eighteen year old Polish )or American in a CONUS campaign) refugee - using rules as written, they’d start with virtually no skills (this is one reason why I much prefer the 2013 mechanics - in my experience you can create a far more rounded character using Reflex rules). So the system pushes you towards playing a military character (one who changes branch every term if you really want to maximise your skills). The best way to get round that I’ve seen to get round that and level the playing field is a Points Buy system that lets people play the sort of character that they want to play without having to feel like they're running a suboptimal character.

As those who have gamed with me before are probably well aware I also find the military chain of command that exists in many T2K games to be something that can cause issues. I’ve seen games where people playing officers have thought that gives them carte blanche to tell other players what to do (to be fair, I’ve also seen games where it’s been done very well - looking at you Fahd). I tried to circumvent that in one game by implementing a ‘no officer PC’s’ policy to encourage a more inclusive structure. In another game the PC’s started as a Free Company (essentially mercs for hire). While that game had a rank structure it was relatively fluid / collegial.

[Olefin]

also you have to keep in mind there are civilian characters who have no idea about the military and then those brought up in families with military veterans

in real life on the TDM I had a few years of ROTC training (before I got hurt playing football) but that was about it for the current generation - however the previous two generations had all served in combat and as a result we had been taught how to shoot, clean and take care of weapons. All the men and some of the women were hunters and knew things like how to move quietly thru the woods and do ambushes. We were very familiar with weapons like the 9mm and 45 caliber pistols the military carried as well as M1 Garands and Thompson SMG's and sniper rifles - because we grew up around them and had been taught to use them. Same with things like dynamite and making explosives.

Compare that to a civilian who grew up in a city, never fired a gun before the TDM and didnt have anyone who ever served in the military in their family.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

As those who have gamed with me before are probably well aware I also find the military chain of command that exists in many T2K games to be something that can cause issues. I’ve seen games where people playing officers have thought that gives them carte blanche to tell other players what to do (to be fair, I’ve also seen games where it’s been done very well - looking at you Fahd). I tried to circumvent that in one game by implementing a ‘no officer PC’s’ policy to encourage a more inclusive structure. In another game the PC’s started as a Free Company (essentially mercs for hire). While that game had a rank structure it was relatively fluid / collegial.

+1

I've seen the concept of rank cause problems in T2k campaigns before too. The whole idea of a pecking order or hierarchy in a game can be a turn-off to a lot of people. And if someone wants to play a civilian, it's usually with the understanding that they will be at the very bottom of the rank totem pole. I can't imagine it would be very fun being expected to follow orders from a PFC.

IIRC, v2.2 rules give civilian PCs very few skills, compared to military PCs. Even conscripts get a lot fewer skills. If a player doesn't want his/her PC to be useless to the party, this might dissuade them from playing a civilian. I've found that v2.2 kind of encourages players to gravitate towards the special forces templates. Hence parties of 5th ID survivors that contain a Green Beret, a couple of Rangers, a USMC Scout-Sniper or two, and at least one Navy SEAL.

I've seen rank cut both ways too. I've seen instances where the player with the highest IG rank becomes a martinet and starts bossing other players around. This hardly ever ends well. I've also seen instances where low-ranking players rarely show any initiative. Instead, they wait for someone playing a higher ranking PC to give them orders. That doesn't lend itself very well to collaborative play either. And lastly, I've seen instances where decision-making becomes a very painful exercise because players are too unwilling to pull rank. Too little hierarchy can cause problems too. Rank, IMHO, is a double-edged sword.

As for sexuality/sexual identity, I've played in probably 10 different PbP or PBeM campaigns over the last 15 years or so and I only ever encountered one gay PC (and her player had to tell me she was gay years after the fact). I have no idea how much of this is down to player preference, and how much it has to with US military prohibitions against LGBTQ service people in the 1980s and '90s. T2k seems a little on the macho side of the spectrum, so I can see how that perception might scare some interested people off.

-

[unipus]

The designer's notes in the addendum of v1 are very clear about that being one of the original design problems: they wanted to do a military game but needed a way to get around the problem of pulling rank. The solution was the apocalypse and the collapse at Kalisz. Arguably, this situation really only sorta solves the problem. It's playable, but really you're still going to run into many situations where rank matters. And in many cases that's still a problem when you're trying to run an RPG.

[Tegyrius]

Unfortunately, I think they invalidated that design decision by making rank a mechanical function of character generation. There is an offset in 1e in that characters with high stats are ironically less likely to have high rank. In 2e, there's no down side: with promotion granting extra skills and rank determining starting funds, higher-ranking characters begin play at a higher level of capability.

- C.

[Olefin]

That’s one reason I have always said that GM’s need to make sure that things are realistic as to what players can be - ie the chances that everyone is some kind of Special Forces is not based on the reality of the military. I have played officers and enlisted men and like both sides. And rank in the Kalisz scenario really doesn’t mean as much when you are cut off and alone. I can see it being much more of an issue in campaigns where the military is still organized - ie places like Kenya or Iran or in the UK where the British govt is still in control - then it’s more a military simulation versus a fight for survival.

In my original campaign I was a captain but all I was in command of was my tank. The group made decisions as a group and my rank only came into play in the game a couple of times when we ran into other organized US units - at least until we got back into Germany.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

By far, the greatest common factors driving disinterest among potential players is the game's military focus. ...

A corollary to this is that most of my gaming friendships emerged from World of Darkness fandom, and thus my gaming circle is more diverse than the audience here. Several female gamers, gamers of color, and LGBTQ+ gamers have opined that T2k is not interesting because the setting lacks a place for PCs whose identities and experiences mirror their own (recall that during the era in which T2k takes place, LGBTQ+ folk were barred from U.S. military service).


I'm curious as to what barriers other referees have encountered when attempting to recruit new groups. I'm also interested in poking at what tools can be created - whether official 4e products, changes intrinsic to a hypothetical 5e, or fan creations for previous editions - to help overcome these barriers and bring more players to the game.

- C.

Second question first: in my few groups since 1990, I do not recall female gamers having trouble getting into the setting or game. I've been a pretty lax GM about "women can't do combat", and I think most of their characters were from countries that were less rigid about women in combat arms in the 90s. LGBTQ issues haven't come up at all, since I don't think sex & romance haven't been issues in those groups, either.

The military theme has probably been stronger. 1) I have a reputation in my RPG groups as a wargamer, so there may well be a fear of "not doing it right", that I'd wipe the floor with their group with my superior tactics? 2) Very few of my friends really care about war and military things to begin with, so a game in a military setting has no pull.

Regarding rank: That may be a thing, but I've gotten some discussion about that whenever a pirate-themed D&D game came up, or a Traveller or Star Trek game. In my groups, the understanding has arisen that the captain of a ship (by extension, an officer in T2k) really shouldn't boss around other PCs, or there could be an NPC captain, open to suggestions.

My most recent experience with T2k has been at the annual Origins convention, and my groups have been about 75% guys who played T2k back in the day, 15% spouses or kids of same, and 10% people who'd only heard of the game, no military experience. I'm happy to say that I've gotten repeat business from the last group, they seemed to enjoy the tactical play of the game. That said, those have been one-off events, mostly on planning and shooting, very little of the logistics of survival.

[Raellus]

Perhaps the biggest barrier to new player entry for T2k is simply not knowing about T2k. Consider the age of the game. T2k v1 was released in 1984 or thereabouts. v2.2 in 1993. IIRC, the last new printed material for v2.2 was released in '95 or '96. So, Twilight 2000 was essentially a dead game for about 15 years or so, until T2013 came out in 2009. That version had a tragically short run (I don't know this, but my impression is that the printing was relatively small as well), so its impact was pretty minimal. After that, T2k was essentially a dead game again, for another decade or so. This all means that potential players born after the end of the Cold War would have no reason to even know that T2k existed unless they were into Cold War military history and happened upon some obscure internet forum dedicated to an essentially dead game (i.e. T2k).

That's why the release of v4- regardless of how O.G. fans feel about it- is an important event. It might draw folks who've never heard of T2k into the fold.

-