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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

I'm left speechless.

Good luck buddy.

[headquarters]

I want to strike a blow for V 2.0 - this intermediate edition is the best imho - it needs a bit of tweaking -as do most RPGs ( yeah ,yeah Targan not harnmaster bla bla )

But I find that right amount of tweaks and balanced lethality system is paramaount to get what I prefer -a fast paced game that allows for detailed phase resolution without getting bogged down in tables and endless dice rolls.

( example : Three characters letting their MK-19s run full auto on multiple enemy targets on foot,vehicular ,with varied distances and speeds,armour values etcetc ..)

Char generation needs upgrades in all three editions imho ,but the gamble against the "war starts " dice is interesting and adds a dimension to it I find enjoyable.

V.2.0 gentlemen. better thans its reputation and compareable to other world class systems !

[Adm.Lee]

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.)

I've thought about using 3-year terms, and/or then having a d6 roll to round up or down a year at the end of chargen.

Re: 59-year old tanker. My great-grandfather *may* have gone to WW1 ~age 57. He was a sergeant in the Pennsylvania NG, and I have a photo of him in the regiment's pre-deployment "yearbook." I just haven't found any evidence beyond that. That same regiment went to Luzon in 1898-99, but again, no hard evidence.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

TOO MUCH INFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



as for V1 or V2, I prefer V2, V2.2.

I hated the 1 shot = 3 rds of V1, but oddly enough, I liked the vehicle combat system, or actually the different armor values (front, front left, front right, etc) and damage resolution. But like others said, it slowed things down alot.

I liked the inclusion of civilian careers and other nation military careers in V2.

When I gm'ed V2 and V2.2, I got into some pretty heavy debates about the aging and not getting the same amount of skills when you get older. I won of course, because I was the GM, but now that I'm older, I can understand the reasoning. But we did a lot of tweaking the number of skill points and terms.

Does anyone recall Brian Bilderback's postings on the old webprg forum, he posted a very detailed reworking of the V2 character generation system.

Like Paul said, age related attribute loss is real. I'm definitely fatter, slower than I was in my late teen's-20's. I believe that scientific studies have also shown that your brain is at its peak in your late 20's...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

When I gm'ed V2 and V2.2, I got into some pretty heavy debates about the aging and not getting the same amount of skills when you get older.

I can understand the attribute loss in physical stats. There's less justification in saying that the older you get, the less capacity you have to learn something new. Yes, many of us will get old and senile, or, like my mother who's had two strokes, will struggle with mastering new concepts. But most people don't "get dumber as they get older" -- the amount of knowledge they amass in a long lifetime can be truly surprising, and as you accumulate knowledge, you build upon it and learn even more. I could understand if T2K was a game about troops who get out of the military and settle down to a sedentary, couch-potato lifestyle (like I have), but most survivors of World War 3 aren't going to be like that, because by and large you can't survive that way. People who can't keep learning new stuff are probably going to die, and they wouldn't live to become characters in T2K.

A soldier who has survived World War 3 is smart, tough, agile, savvy, and has learned a LOT, or he'd already be dead. World War 3 survivors would almost by definition be the cream of the crop of the human race (whether an evil cream or a good cream, or just survivor cream) -- either that, or you've been given way more than your allotment of luck.

[Raellus]

NPR's Morning Edition did a piece late last week about the myths of brain aging. I wish I could remember the name of the book they were discussing. Apparently, recent research studies have shown that middle-aged folks are better at seeing patterns, organizing information, and making connections than younger folks supposedly in their cognitive prime (i.e. late 20s). Significant drop-offs in cognitive performance were not seen until after age 60 or so in most otherwise healthy adults.

Also, studies have shown that the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until the mid-to-late twenties. That's why kids and college-aged young adults often make really poor choices. They're brains aren't wired to consider all of the possible future ramifications of their behavior.

I don't think skills requiring cognitive processes should be penalized in older PCs. Physical processes, probably. Perhaps older PCs wouldn't learn NEW cognitive skills quite as quickly as young folks, though.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I was of the impression that the only real justification for the age related loss of stats was due to the lack of medical/health care in the post-apocalypse world until someone pointed out to me that these penalties apply during career generation before the war (yes I did have a serious "dumb" moment at that time - it was many years ago now and alcohol may have contributed). After I realized that I figured that for someone in a military career (or police, fire etc) there was less chance for age related loss simply because you were supposed to maintain your health and fitness
I think now that the age penalties should be done via Age AND career rather than age alone with some careers helping to combat the loss and some actively allowing it. However, I rarely played the game let alone ran it so I don't have the depth of knowledge to actively rewrite all of that

[Owen E Oulton]

I'm going to vote for T2Kv2.2, the so-called "d20" version (before WotC usurped the title "d20" for it's version of D&D). T2K 1 with its 3 rounds = 1 "shot" and the need for a doctorate in advanced maths just to do CharGen was unweildy - even more so than anything Rich Tucholka has ever come up with. This is, I think, one of the most elegant character generation systems around, and Chargen is the beating heart of any RPG.

[irontyrant]

Not trying to go too far off topic here but I have never used the aging modifiers in my games. I agree to a certain extent that aging can cause you to lose certain qualities but the levels used in RPGs seem to be a little harsh. Using my own experiences I can say that as a 42 year old I am definitely in better shape than I was at 18 my stamina, endurance, and strength are all much better and although I was never really that fast my speed is comparable. I agree that mental capabilities remain strong for most people well into their later years, although I.Q.s get kind of fubared due to the increasing divisor but not enough IMHO to qualify in an RPG sense to subtract as much as many systems do.

I think a lot of the systems show an innate discrimination against the aged that is prevalent in our society.

[irontyrant]

I really dig all the editions of T2K( except 2013). In my own games I use mostly 2.2, with a healthy dose of Paul's great stuff, for characters and personal combat; like others have posted I have changed the damage system by removing all multipliers for hit location. I also have incorporated stature back into my games, I think it works better for me in terms of suspension of disbelief, especially for knockdown. I have also doubled the damage dice for most small arms particularly those that are unrealistically feeble ( shot guns I'm looking at you!). I also really dig V1's skill point allotment particularly.

I also use a combo of V1,2.2 vehicle combat. I know it slows down play but I really like the armor ratings for the different vehicle areas, so I use the v1 hit locations but use the condensed ratings from 2.2 with the penetration ratings from 2.2 as well.

I like the house system so much that with the few modifications I've gathered from Paul I use it for just about all my games regardless of genre.

[Targan]

I notice that many posters have cited v1's 1 shot = 3 rounds system as a big negative and that surprises me, not because I liked 1 shot equalling 3 rounds but because it was such a minor rule and so easy to fix. Just multiply listed magazine capacities by 3 and house rule that 1 shot = 1 round. Tweak rates of fire as required, add extra little house rules for weapons designed to primarilly fire three round bursts.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

I almost did about 20 years ago -- a player created an artillerist, but he waw never run.

The last few years I've toyed with the idea of using the T2K setting with ... Fudge

[Gabe The Gun]

Just got my V2 set in so I will be reading it up along with my 2013! Yeah E-Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got the main V2 book and the Infantry weopons of the world for 12 buks brand new including shipping! SWEET!

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Gabe The Gun

Just got my V2 set in so I will be reading it up along with my 2013! Yeah E-Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got the main V2 book and the Infantry weopons of the world for 12 buks brand new including shipping! SWEET!

Yeah, the V2 book is the shit. Infantry Weapons of the World is very cool. I love that book it's about as good as any Jane's weapon books. In fact, I have seen more mistakes in a Jane's that I had bought once.