v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[unipus]

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.

[Lurken]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.

[sellanraa]

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.

[Tegyrius]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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"?

[Raellus]

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.

-

[unipus]

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.

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.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

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.

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.

[Lurken]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

...and on HW as late as today I got a begrudging lesson on why my earlier take on it may have been wrong.

Begrudging?
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations!

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Begrudging?
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations!

Begrudging because I had to retreat from my position from a barrage of good references to other canon sources and sound deductive reasoning =p

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

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.

[sellanraa]

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.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by sellanraa

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.

[sellanraa]

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!

[Southernap]

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.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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"?

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Y
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!!!!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by mpipes

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.

If said "help" reads like the critique below, then how can one be surprised- let alone offended- that it was ignored/rejected?

Originally Posted by mpipes

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.

Setting aside the issues of tone and presentation for a moment, does the above assessment of the v4 content still/equally apply to the Beta?

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by unipus

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.

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unipus

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.

Hmm lets see - what we were expecting was Twilight 2000 - you know the game and timeline we have been playing since the mid-1980's - my first campaign started three months after the game was released for instance as soon as my GM got his copy and digested it enough to be able to run it - and that it would be faithful to the timeline and the things that made the game so good that it survived not being supported or having new things released for it for nearly 21 years with a lot of faithful adherents

In other words what we expected was a reboot that was faithful enough to still be recognizable but with some changes - i.e. what they did to Star Trek for instance - it was still Starfleet, Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al but slightly different - and thus it was accepted.

This is a rip it up and start over reboot - its like trying to reboot Star Trek and its Earthfleet, no Federation, no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy and telling the fans to accept it because at least you get some Star Trek. That is 100% not the right way to do it.

There is a great History Channel show right now called The Food That Built America - the Coke episode is a perfect example of what is going on here - Coke tried to fight Pepsi and was losing - so what did they do - they put out a new version of Coke that was supposed to be superior to the old version - and no one liked it - and it almost killed Coca Cola. They only saved the company by bringing back the old version. Lets hope that V4 doesnt turn out to be the New Coke of Twilight 2000 - a reboot that is supposedly going to bring a whole new bunch of customers - but in doing so manages to lose the fan base that kept the game alive for nearly 25 years after GDW died.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

That is 100% how it was communicated to me by Marc Miller when it started. That this would be either a continuation or revamp of the V2.2 timeline that would honor what had come before it. Unfortunately that is not what we got.

[Olefin]

FYI for those trying to access the size of the T2K audience out there as it currently stands

Both the Korean and East Africa Sourcebooks have over 500 downloads each since they were released, one in 2017, the other in 2018, and Rooks Gambit isnt far behind

The Pacific Northwest module has also sold very well since its release in February

And the fanzine downloads give an even better idea of the size of the current T2K fan base

As of Feb 20, 2021 the fanzine downloads were as follows - and are probably larger by now

No. 1 Grand Totals: 1890
No. 2 Grand Totals: 1874
No. 3 Grand Totals: 1096

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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"?

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

I will be more blunt....they actively solicited talent from the forum to work with them with assurances, perhaps a bit vague on particulars, that FL was writing a fully compatible version - rules and history both consistent with the originals save tweaking here and there as well as some revision. Heck, it was in their promotional materials while soliciting funds! Now that may be fraud, depending on what was said and if there are any contracts.

Some of the more vocal critics here were out and out told that FL was considering having them write modules for it, as FL milked their gaming skills and insights to help them draft the Alpha. The project was going to be an update; not a total reboot with a grossly different timeline and wholly different game mechanics. People were point-blanked lied too, and they are not unjustified having hard feelings over it or in being upset.

Again, maybe not illegal but definitely shady and unethical; especially by duping some to spend HOURS of their time trying to aid FL efforts to produce a good game. And when said Alpha draft came out - nothing was as had been represented.

Anyway, as I said, I hope FL does well. I am sure they would have done LOTS better if they had done what they said they would do - and I hope they get continually reminded of that should this venture fail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.

Oh yes, I am well aware of what actual toxic behaviour on a forum looks like. One only has to visit some D&D, Battletech, Vampire and even Traveller forums to see that what has occurred here is people getting hot blooded and other people getting their feelings hurt because someone does not share their vision of what the game should be (and no, I am NOT leaving myself out of those categories)
This forum is actually pretty damned tame compared to some of the forums for those games listed above. I'm aware of arguments on some of those forums that have continued over a course of years. And the "version wars", oh my god! The things hurled back and forth on some of those threads would make any grumpy old curmudgeon feel like a puppy in the company of feral dogs - it's more a bloodfeud than a disagreement!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by mpipes

...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.

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad? Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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"?

I agree with you 100% here. We are supposed to have "Free Speech" in the West. That includes Speech where people may feel hurt or angry because of it. But then again, Speech we all agree with doesn't NEED protecting. I DO NOT believe in "safe spaces." If you don't like what I said, give me your opinion back. I'm a big boy... I can take it. But censoring Speech because "someone may find it offensive" is a cardinal sin in real America.