T2K v1.........or v2 ??

[Gabe The Gun]

What is the difference between v1 and v2? Is the system and rules different? Is v2 easier to run and play? Are the rules more clear than v1? What are your opinions?

[pmulcahy11b]

V1:
1) Character Generation rules better
2) Task resolution OK, but could be better
2) Personal and fire combat rules better
3) Timeline better
4) Vehicle combat rules way too complicated

V2/2.2
1) Character Generation rules suck
2) Task resolution still OK, but could still be better
2) Personal and fire combat not lethal enough
3) Timeline doesn't make sense in several ways
4) Vehicle combat rules very streamlined and much easier to resolve

Basically, the biggest difference is that V1 is based on a d100 system, while v2/2.2 is a d20-based system. V2.2 improves on V2 in several ways, but I wish GDW had survived longer to make their own V3.

I'm sure there's more...

[Targan]

Since my high school days playing Runequest I've favoured d100 systems over anything else. I've only ever played 1st ed T2K but I have a couple of 2nd ed books. When I converted T2K to Harnmaster/Gunmaster I ported over a vehicle combat system using elements from both v1 and v2 T2K.

Basically I prefer rules crunchy over rules light so I tend to steer clear of anything that I perceive to be "dumbed down" in an RPG system. I know that it is a personal bias and probably not always fair to some of what I would consider to be "rules light" systems, but hey, at least I'm not kidding myself. I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of an RPG rules elitist. I do understand the POV of those who believe that complicated rules get in the way of good storytelling. Long live diversity!

[Twilight2000v3MM]

Paul hit it in the head though I favor V2/2.2 more than v1 if I had to choose between the two.

[leonpoi]

I was playing v1 probably 15 years ago, or more. After more than a decade, I got v2.2 and started playing about a two years ago. In my opinion v1 was a too slow to play - vehicle combat is tough to resolve and very time consuming, and the initiative system requires a lot of thought (though I did like it in principle).

v2.2 is one of my favourite game systems for balance between speed and complexity. I've got houserules for autofire and a few other things, but mostly I play it as is. I do prefer the v1 timeline except that it's a bit out of date now (we actually use a combination of the 2 timelines, and in fact it really makes little difference once you start playing). I also really like the v2.2 character generation system.

I agree that personal combat is not lethal enough in v2.2. To get around this I've done a few things, but the most significant is reducing "hit points" roughly to 2/3 of the original number (e.g. CONx2 = STR rather than 2x(CON + STR) for chest). I think v2.2 also makes it too easy to heal, so I've used what I think is v1 healing.

At the end of the day I wouldn't play v1 simply because of the vehicle combat system. I grew up on Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and therefore started in d100, but I prefer the d20 system of v2.2 (it's not d20 d20, it just uses 20-sided dice). I like it because you can just pick up a bunch of d20s and roll them if you shoot multiple bullets rather than having to roll multiple d100s, which is quicker. v1 actually has a strange abstract system for smallarms which bugs some people too (each "shot" is actually 3 bullets - this is probably why it's more "lethal"). v2.2 has a cool quick-kill rule for head and chest shots that I like because it means that even low damage pistol rounds can you kill you out-right and this puts fear into every combat.

In short, I prefer v2.2because it's more streamlined but still very detailed. I play it as is except a few house rules:

• some weapons stats have been changed - just because I wanted to
• medical treatment rules have been slightly tweaked
• smallarms is tied to AGL not STR - recoil is still STR, however
• "Hit points" reduced
• Initiative system made a hybrid of v1 and v2.2 and the macro combat from ruins of warsaw (some suppression/morale rules also from tw2013)
• autofire at less than 1/2 of short range is at 1/2 skill and not 1/4. 5-round burst range increment also changed to S-5, M-3, L-2, E-1 because the rules as is had long range with 1-dice, which was a bit harsh.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

v1 actually has a strange abstract system for smallarms which bugs some people too (each "shot" is actually 3 bullets - this is probably why it's more "lethal")

I was one of those people... I hated the fact that the mag sizes were all a third of what they should be. If I remember correctly the designers commented about the thinking behind it somewhere in V2.

[pmulcahy11b]

Leonpoi: d100 takes more time unless you're like me and have several d100s (actual 100-sided dice -- they used to make them) or use a computer program.

Like you, I also used a "point blank" range that is half of short range, where your chances of hitting are doubled, and in autofire, each bullet hit on a 1-3 on the d6.

I didn't like the 3 rounds = 1 shot of V1, though I really didn't like the vehicle combat rules. It could take 2 or 3 minutes to resolve one hit against a vehicle, and when you were designing new vehicles, you were often educated-guessing as to where the components of the vehicle were.

[Twilight2000v3MM]

I agree that the vehicle combat was complex but it was also very detailed. Which is good and bad.

[Frank Frey]

Greetings,

Between the two versions, I preferred V2/2.2. It was quicker and easier for me to run. I'm not much into "crunchy" rules systems. In fact, if I were to run T2K today, I'd use the Savage Worlds System.

Frank Frey

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by Twilight2000v3MM

I agree that the vehicle combat was complex but it was also very detailed. Which is good and bad.

I agree that it was a good system, but more suited for a computer game or for use with an automated computer programme.

@pmulcahy11b Re: d100, fair enough call, especially in v1 when you do less "shots"

[pmulcahy11b]

I think another argument for 1 shot = 1 round is that, even with automatic weapons, people are going to be taking more semiautomatic, aimed shots and short bursts -- by 2000, people simply can't afford to waste the ammunition on "mad minutes" anymore, and marksmanship will be more valuable than volume of firepower.

(Actually, it should be now as well -- suppressive fire has its value, but I think it's more important to kill your enemy than firing off thousands of rounds and simply causing them to withdraw, or hoping that some of your un-aimed fire hits someone. I say that as someone who did take the half a second or so that it took to put your sights on a target and kill them with one shot.)

[Adm.Lee]

I will agree with most of the above, Except that I preferred v2.2's character generation. I'm a fan of "lifepath" style characters, and so were most of my players. I used v2. almost entirely for Merc/crime, rather than WW3, games, so the chargen was a plus for people to make up all kinds of unique backgrounds. I'm still tempted to try it for an espionage game sometime.

I didn't feel that combat wasn't deadly enough, but upon reflection, the PCs did live pretty well. I prefer the autofire rule from v2, that's the one that sticks most in my mind.

Frank F. mentions Savage Worlds, I was thinking about that for T2k someday (or Cortex, I like it a lot, too), it would very likely flow quicker. I wonder if some of the loss of crunch might detract from the atmosphere. When I played most of my T2k, it was among wargamers who liked the level of complexity that felt like it should go with the complexity of the weapons & technology.

[Mahatatain]

The problem I always found with the T2k "Term" character generation system is that you end up with too many senior NCOs and Officers and almost no characters who are either OR3 or lower in rank or under 29 years old.

I personally prefer a "point" based system where everyone has the same number of starting points to generate their character. The problem with using this method in T2k is that you (as a GM) have to force some decisions regarding ranks and essentially pick the players who you want to be the senior leadership of the unit (assuming that the PCs are still following a formal rank structure).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

I personally prefer a "point" based system where everyone has the same number of starting points to generate their character. The problem with using this method in T2k is that you (as a GM) have to force some decisions regarding ranks and essentially pick the players who you want to be the senior leadership of the unit (assuming that the PCs are still following a formal rank structure).

That really is a good idea -- and sort a vote for a GURPS-based system. Has anyone here used GURPS to run T2K?

I've found that in actual games, the player of the character that seems to know the best what they're doing usually ends up in charge, regardless of his character's rank.

[pmulcahy11b]

The thing that bothers me about the character generation system of v2/2.2 is that it doesn't really allow for the diversity of skills and experience that many people IRL have, especially at higher rank or lengths of service. I've seen it posted several times on this board and its predecessors that they couldn't even generate themselves or many people they've known in life using the V2/2.2 system.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

(Actually, it should be now as well -- suppressive fire has its value, but I think it's more important to kill your enemy than firing off thousands of rounds and simply causing them to withdraw, or hoping that some of your un-aimed fire hits someone. I say that as someone who did take the half a second or so that it took to put your sights on a target and kill them with one shot.)

Amen.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Neither system is great, IMO. I find them both rather awkward and bulky. I know v2.2 better since that's the one I've used the most. I've used v1.0 once or twice and it's OK, but I felt more limited in terms of the characters that I could create. Theoretically, it should be more flexible and offer more options for character creation but in reality, I found that it does not.

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.

I think a combination of v1.0 and v2.2 (point buy + career paths) would be better. There would still be skill paths with pre-determined basic skills and suggested skill suites for each career, but each career term would be allotted a certain number of skill points to spend however the player saw fit. Players could buy skills from a general pool. This would provide some structure but still give the player the flexibility to really customize his/her PC.

I also think that the number of skills- but not necessarily the type of skills- should be equitable for each career. I really don't like how some careers in v2.2 get beucoup skills and skill options whereas others get significantly fewer.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.

That is a problem with my character generation system --it's nothing like the v2.2 system. I simply came to the conclusion that the v2.2 character generation system was better off trashed completely, and I was helped by a couple of guys who used to post regularly (one name should be familiar to some of you -- Orrin Ladd). That said, I'll admit that my system is quite the messy kludge, but it accomplished the results I was after -- more flexibility in character generation.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The thing that bothers me about the character generation system of v2/2.2 is that it doesn't really allow for the diversity of skills and experience that many people IRL have, especially at higher rank or lengths of service. I've seen it posted several times on this board and its predecessors that they couldn't even generate themselves or many people they've known in life using the V2/2.2 system.

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period. I give characters 2 skill points per 2ndary activity which they can use to increase attributes as normal for 2 points or actually put into 2 skills. One skill must be 2ndary act the other can be or can be from career. This gives a little bit more flexibility with skill choice and if I let them take hell early this means that they have a couple more skill points to diversify.

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous.

[Cdnwolf]

(Looking innocent)... so something like the Twilight 2013 rules... minus the horrible storyline??

[weswood]

I have a bastardized system I use based on TSR's Top Secret/SI character system with mostly my own combat rules. It's a D100 system, combat runs fast and fairly deadly.

The careers are mostly my own inventions. A player buys the skills needed from a pool based on his Intelligence. He can also buy rank using his skill points, and each level of ranks adds a preset number of years to the character's beginning age. The beginning age is determined by 16+ 1d4, plus any modifications for rank or education.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous.

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period.

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

Well I stand corrected, especially when you consider that in the tw2k context this tanker was 59 before the hell 4-year term, plus it is WW3 afterall.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this?

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

I only meant during char gen., but I suppose if character's lived long enough (4 more years) then I'd think about it. You make a good point though. If I ignore it during char gen then it doesn't matter how long terms are and players can kind of choose their age, within the limits of their experience and careers.

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore

-------
Poor Gabe The Gun, he's going to look at this thread and say, "wooo, too much info, might play gunmaster instead."

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...

AND thats why they invented Viagra

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

AND thats why they invented Viagra

LOL! Maybe that's why I'm seeing a urologist on Thursday for pain in my testicles -- they're clogged up!