Design Discussion: Barriers to New Player Entry for T2k

[Olefin]

FYI blocking the Suez Canal is already part of the V2.2 canon - ie the Soviet nuclear strike at one end of the canal blocked the exit due to the sunken ships and other wreckage for several years

And I agree that a game that is realistic must have its details and it’s timeline much better thought out than a fantasy RPG - there aren’t any dragons or giants running around but there are a hell of a lot of people that have fired an M16 or AK. Or who have been part of a helicopter assault. Or for that matter people like me who have worked on US equipment and know that the Bradley and M1 can fire on the move and should have no penalty at all as long as their fire control and stabilization systems are working to do so while Soviet tanks can’t do that.

[Raellus]

Fair point, but I reckon that the segment of the RPG market with hands-on military experience is considerably smaller than the one without.

Any game designer that intentionally markets its product primarily to ex-military consumers risks losing out on a much larger market. That doesn't seem like the best long-term strategy for sustaining sales.

And a game that actually favors real-world experience that isn't universal sort of self-imposes barriers to players that lack said. For T2k, some potential players may not want to play with military vets because they don't want to feel ignorant, or be patronized by players with more applicable real world experience. I played with and Ref'd for the same combat vet and he could be a bit of a know-it-all at times. Although I appreciated some of his knowledge and wisdom, the "well, actually..." bit got old really quick.

Add in IG rank, and a game could end up getting pretty un-fun pretty darn quick.

With fantasy or sci-fi games, assuming no one has more experience with a giving setting or rules system, everyone pretty much starts out at the same starting point.

-

[mpipes]

I've had the personal opinion that by 2000, most people still alive have a weapon around someplace. The big problem is cartridges for the gun they have. In the US, there are a dizzying array of gun calibers that will be floating around, while in Mexico or even Europe the selection will be somewhat more limited, which should make cartridge scrounging at least a bit easier.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I think the difference is that in a fantasy RPG, everyone is readily willing to suspend disbelief the same way. In a game with "realistic" conditions, the suspension of disbelief is tempered by each person's experiences. I was playing in a TW:2K game years ago with high school friends. Fast forward after we graduate when one of my friends was fresh out of Army boot camp and MP school . Those M16A2s in the v1 rules? No good - because he actually trained with M16A2s and insisted we create rules for them that reflected an accurate rate of fire. The v1 rules show a ROF of 4, and each "shot" is actually 3 bullets, while the M16A2 only fires single shot or 3-round burst. Up until then, we didn't know - all we saw was M16 and basing it understanding off of Vietnam-era information with the full auto M16A1...

This I think is one of the issues with my local group. Most of us are Veterans, but we can not make our skill sets accurately in the game. For example we have one of our guys who was an Airborne Combat Engineer, I started as a Tanker, but finished as EOD. We both have Demolitions training, but our skill sets are VERY different, EOD is the military subject matter experts in Demolitions, we spend a year in school learning about them, up to and including Nuclear weapons, but we do not clear minefields, drop bridges and stuff like that. Engineers (as much as they might like to say they can) can not disarm explosive devices safely. So if we were to try and make someone who mostly fit what we did, he could sort of do it (no real option for airborne if other than infantry). But I was left with the Support Arm, and it is just about useless to try and make any real life MOS skill set. So I guess what I am seeing is that most of the guys I know want to play something that looks at least somewhat like there experiences, this was even worse if you make someone not ground based (the Navy vets in our group none of them ever fired anything larger than a M14, or fixed stuff for there job, but get Heavy Weapons 2, and Mechanic 1).

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by CDAT

This I think is one of the issues with my local group. Most of us are Veterans, but we can not make our skill sets accurately in the game. For example we have one of our guys who was an Airborne Combat Engineer, I started as a Tanker, but finished as EOD. We both have Demolitions training, but our skill sets are VERY different, EOD is the military subject matter experts in Demolitions, we spend a year in school learning about them, up to and including Nuclear weapons, but we do not clear minefields, drop bridges and stuff like that. Engineers (as much as they might like to say they can) can not disarm explosive devices safely. So if we were to try and make someone who mostly fit what we did, he could sort of do it (no real option for airborne if other than infantry). But I was left with the Support Arm, and it is just about useless to try and make any real life MOS skill set. So I guess what I am seeing is that most of the guys I know want to play something that looks at least somewhat like there experiences, this was even worse if you make someone not ground based (the Navy vets in our group none of them ever fired anything larger than a M14, or fixed stuff for there job, but get Heavy Weapons 2, and Mechanic 1).

That’s why I prefer a points buy system for character creation. If you have a pool of points that you can spend on any skill set that at least partly addresses the sort of issues that you’re referring to, up to a point at least. Another option is the specialisations that they had in 2013 that allowed you to focus on a specific area.

WRT how much of an impact IG rank and OOC military experience have, personally I think this depends on each individual's gaming group and whether you’re playing face to face or playing by post online. Face to face I’d imagine it’s probably not an issue - everyone knows each other, presumably gets on with each other, and can read each other’s body language.

Online it’s not always like that. You’re bringing together a random group of people who may not all know each other at the start of the game, and while the GM can lay out his vision of the game, not everyone hears the same message. As I said earlier, when it's done well rank doesn't cause any problems. But when it's done badly - usually when one player thinks they are somehow entitled to tell other players what to do - it can wreck a game pretty quick. In general I don't think most gamers want to play a game where they're told what to do all the time. If people's perception of a military game (any game with a hierarchy really) is that that's what's going to happen then I think that's a barrier.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Fair point, but I reckon that the segment of the RPG market with hands-on military experience is considerably smaller than the one without.

Any game designer that intentionally markets its product primarily to ex-military consumers risks losing out on a much larger market. That doesn't seem like the best long-term strategy for sustaining sales.

And a game that actually favors real-world experience that isn't universal sort of self-imposes barriers to players that lack said. For T2k, some potential players may not want to play with military vets because they don't want to feel ignorant, or be patronized by players with more applicable real world experience. I played with and Ref'd for the same combat vet and he could be a bit of a know-it-all at times. Although I appreciated some of his knowledge and wisdom, the "well, actually..." bit got old really quick.

Add in IG rank, and a game could end up getting pretty un-fun pretty darn quick.

With fantasy or sci-fi games, assuming no one has more experience with a giving setting or rules system, everyone pretty much starts out at the same starting point.

-

Originally Posted by CDAT

This I think is one of the issues with my local group. Most of us are Veterans, but we can not make our skill sets accurately in the game. For example we have one of our guys who was an Airborne Combat Engineer, I started as a Tanker, but finished as EOD. We both have Demolitions training, but our skill sets are VERY different, EOD is the military subject matter experts in Demolitions, we spend a year in school learning about them, up to and including Nuclear weapons, but we do not clear minefields, drop bridges and stuff like that. Engineers (as much as they might like to say they can) can not disarm explosive devices safely. So if we were to try and make someone who mostly fit what we did, he could sort of do it (no real option for airborne if other than infantry). But I was left with the Support Arm, and it is just about useless to try and make any real life MOS skill set. So I guess what I am seeing is that most of the guys I know want to play something that looks at least somewhat like there experiences, this was even worse if you make someone not ground based (the Navy vets in our group none of them ever fired anything larger than a M14, or fixed stuff for there job, but get Heavy Weapons 2, and Mechanic 1).

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

That’s why I prefer a points buy system for character creation. If you have a pool of points that you can spend on any skill set that at least partly addresses the sort of issues that you’re referring to, up to a point at least. Another option is the specialisations that they had in 2013 that allowed you to focus on a specific area.

WRT how much of an impact IG rank and OOC military experience have, personally I think this depends on each individual's gaming group and whether you’re playing face to face or playing by post online. Face to face I’d imagine it’s probably not an issue - everyone knows each other, presumably gets on with each other, and can read each other’s body language.

Online it’s not always like that. You’re bringing together a random group of people who may not all know each other at the start of the game, and while the GM can lay out his vision of the game, not everyone hears the same message. As I said earlier, when it's done well rank doesn't cause any problems. But when it's done badly - usually when one player thinks they are somehow entitled to tell other players what to do - it can wreck a game pretty quick. In general I don't think most gamers want to play a game where they're told what to do all the time. If people's perception of a military game (any game with a hierarchy really) is that that's what's going to happen then I think that's a barrier.

There are several factors that are always going to impact verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.

There are always ways to create house rules to address perceived errors or shortcomings in the RAW.

There aren't, however, ways to normalize the real world experience (or lack thereof) of the players. Even when two players may both have the same former background, they're individual experiences may be vastly different.

My own experience? two different classes of submarines as a reactor operator. Both of them going into decommissioning, with one Westpac, an augmentation to go to schools during an Eastpac, one ORSE, one TRE, one TWP, and a POMCERT, plus a bunch of local ops. Port visits in Chinhae, Guam, Sasebo, Brisbane, and America Samoa. Swim call in the Panama Canal. During the Eastpac, when I was back in Pearl Harbor going to schools, other guys in my division were doing port visits in Nanaimo, San Diego, and other spots on the west coast. I missed those experiences. Other guys started back during our Westpac and missed those experiences.

How do you gel that into a consistent overarching framework for an RPG? I think you can look at the chargen and allow some customization, with the packages of skills being the baseline. If I were to try and build a version of me using the RAW, it would be very difficult to do so with any semblance of reality. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

When someone who is a veteran does the "yeah but..." thing, it's going to have to be a matter of mutual agreement in how to get over the difference of their past reality vs a shared pretend reality. One could even do the same thing with civilian professions. Guys in my gaming group besides me: light rail train conductor, police officer, and a former air force police officer now in nursing school. The two cops? Vastly different experiences - one dealing with urban decay as a state transit cop and the other in charge of security of aircraft that he could neither confirm nor deny were our weren't armed with specials... But - get them in the same room, and you can see the similarities. We once spent half a gaming session as the two of them debated the merits of each other's service pistols - the transit cop passing around his (confirmed unloaded) new issue sidearm (and the subsequent "Wow, you just violated *every* rule of firearm safety" after the train conductor handed back his pistol...)

I think *that* is the key. Find out how your players can all relate to their characters, even if the reality is different from the game. If all in agreement, then using house rules should study 6 those with the experience while those without won't be the wiser.

My example of the M16A2 vs M16A1? We house ruled in V1 based upon real world cyclic ROF. We averaged the cyclic ROF at 825 rpm for the M16A1 and 800 for the M16A2. As a result, we assumed M16A1 could fire 13.75 rounds per second, which is 4.58 "shots." So, we upped the ROF for an M16A1 to 5, with the M16A2 at 4.4 "shots" which rounds down to 4.

Everyone was happy - the player who has actually fired an M16A2 gets a better understanding of the rules intent, while also satisfying his need for differentiating from the M16A1. That also allowed another player who was playing a ARNG character could be outfitted with an older M16A1, representing the typical ARNG and reservist use of older outdated gear as compared to active duty army...

[unipus]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've worked as a military contractor and on a number of training systems/aids over the years. I've worked with a lot of SMEs on a lot of topics; everything from doctrine-level down to CQB and vocab on radio calls.

Difference between a good, smart SME and a bad one? The smart ones would say right away "Look, everyone has their own way of doing this and they're all going to tell you it's the only way."

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by unipus

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've worked as a military contractor and on a number of training systems/aids over the years. I've worked with a lot of SMEs on a lot of topics; everything from doctrine-level down to CQB and vocab on radio calls.

Difference between a good, smart SME and a bad one? The smart ones would say right away "Look, everyone has their own way of doing this and they're all going to tell you it's the only way."

As a SME (apparently my customers consider me to be one, even though I'm constantly trying to improve), I concur...

The problem with people who are considered experts is two-fold. First - the bricklayer's fallacy usually pops up.

The second one is that expert opinion is almost always flawed when taken out of context or misinterpreted by the layperson.

I guess it will depend on just what level of detail all the players are interested in. My opinion is that you really need players who are closer to the bean-counter end of the player spectrum of you want to keep track of what should be incredibly scarce resources. The average D&D player isn't going to be able to handle that type of "configuration management" (even though they'll do it while counting their gold and detailing out the requirements for a magic item or spell...) Lots of players don't get that the tedious list of items packratted away in the stryker or MRAP is actually their treasure horde...

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

There are several factors that are always going to impact verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.

There are always ways to create house rules to address perceived errors or shortcomings in the RAW.

There aren't, however, ways to normalize the real world experience (or lack thereof) of the players. Even when two players may both have the same former background, they're individual experiences may be vastly different.

My own experience? two different classes of submarines as a reactor operator. Both of them going into decommissioning, with one Westpac, an augmentation to go to schools during an Eastpac, one ORSE, one TRE, one TWP, and a POMCERT, plus a bunch of local ops. Port visits in Chinhae, Guam, Sasebo, Brisbane, and America Samoa. Swim call in the Panama Canal. During the Eastpac, when I was back in Pearl Harbor going to schools, other guys in my division were doing port visits in Nanaimo, San Diego, and other spots on the west coast. I missed those experiences. Other guys started back during our Westpac and missed those experiences.

How do you gel that into a consistent overarching framework for an RPG? I think you can look at the chargen and allow some customization, with the packages of skills being the baseline. If I were to try and build a version of me using the RAW, it would be very difficult to do so with any semblance of reality. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

When someone who is a veteran does the "yeah but..." thing, it's going to have to be a matter of mutual agreement in how to get over the difference of their past reality vs a shared pretend reality. One could even do the same thing with civilian professions. Guys in my gaming group besides me: light rail train conductor, police officer, and a former air force police officer now in nursing school. The two cops? Vastly different experiences - one dealing with urban decay as a state transit cop and the other in charge of security of aircraft that he could neither confirm nor deny were our weren't armed with specials... But - get them in the same room, and you can see the similarities. We once spent half a gaming session as the two of them debated the merits of each other's service pistols - the transit cop passing around his (confirmed unloaded) new issue sidearm (and the subsequent "Wow, you just violated *every* rule of firearm safety" after the train conductor handed back his pistol...)

I think *that* is the key. Find out how your players can all relate to their characters, even if the reality is different from the game. If all in agreement, then using house rules should study 6 those with the experience while those without won't be the wiser.

My example of the M16A2 vs M16A1? We house ruled in V1 based upon real world cyclic ROF. We averaged the cyclic ROF at 825 rpm for the M16A1 and 800 for the M16A2. As a result, we assumed M16A1 could fire 13.75 rounds per second, which is 4.58 "shots." So, we upped the ROF for an M16A1 to 5, with the M16A2 at 4.4 "shots" which rounds down to 4.

Everyone was happy - the player who has actually fired an M16A2 gets a better understanding of the rules intent, while also satisfying his need for differentiating from the M16A1. That also allowed another player who was playing a ARNG character could be outfitted with an older M16A1, representing the typical ARNG and reservist use of older outdated gear as compared to active duty army...

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

That’s why I prefer a points buy system for character creation. If you have a pool of points that you can spend on any skill set that at least partly addresses the sort of issues that you’re referring to, up to a point at least. Another option is the specialisations that they had in 2013 that allowed you to focus on a specific area.

WRT how much of an impact IG rank and OOC military experience have, personally I think this depends on each individual's gaming group and whether you’re playing face to face or playing by post online. Face to face I’d imagine it’s probably not an issue - everyone knows each other, presumably gets on with each other, and can read each other’s body language.

Online it’s not always like that. You’re bringing together a random group of people who may not all know each other at the start of the game, and while the GM can lay out his vision of the game, not everyone hears the same message. As I said earlier, when it's done well rank doesn't cause any problems. But when it's done badly - usually when one player thinks they are somehow entitled to tell other players what to do - it can wreck a game pretty quick. In general I don't think most gamers want to play a game where they're told what to do all the time. If people's perception of a military game (any game with a hierarchy really) is that that's what's going to happen then I think that's a barrier.

I agree at least on the skill side (have made characters for 2013, but never played it) and feel that 2013 made better characters, and totally agree that different people will have different experiences. As I said I started in tanks, and ended as EOD, but in between them for a few years I was bounced around some needs of the Army, one of which was as a combat engineer (if you ask me worst job in the world), my buddy and I were even in the same unit (at different times) but our experiences are totally different. But at least we are for the most part able to say what we think should be more or less. As for the rank issue that has never really been an issue with any group I have been with (but can see how it could be easy), however as I said most are prior service and/or LEO so already somewhat used to chain of command. Then also we were much laxer with it as went kind of with the "you are on your own" was your discharged, so you can only command me as far as I am willing to let you. It is not like you can call in the MP's to arrest me, added to that most of the time we were mixed groups different branches and often some foreign and/or civilian (most LEO) mixed in. So who really is in charge? On some of my real life deployments I was attached to the State Department, so was never in uniform (was in the RSO "Uniform") so most of the military that I ran into thought that I was a federal agent, we were bossing around full birds as Sergeants (E-5/6's) as when an "Agent" told them to do something they jumped to it. I do not know officialy who would be in command, but in practice the Agents were, and can see cases that could be made to put the civilian in command (non-combat at least) depending on who they are or what they do, some of these might help with player rank/command issues?

[Raellus]

Our forum community seems pretty evenly split between those with at least some first-hand military experience and those without.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....y+service+poll

I have a feeling that most game fan demographics skew much more veteran-lite/civie-heavy.

I wonder what it is about T2k that attracts veterans. In a bit of an aside, I'm really curious why a combat vet would want to RP being a soldier in a military-themed war RPG. Like, how many plumbers want to spend their free time RP'ing being a plumber in a home repair RPG?

-

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Our forum community seems pretty evenly split between those with at least some first-hand military experience and those without.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....y+service+poll

I have a feeling that most game fan demographics skew much more veteran-lite/civie-heavy.

I wonder what it is about T2k that attracts veterans. In a bit of an aside, I'm really curious why a combat vet would want to RP being a soldier in a military-themed war RPG. Like, how many plumbers want to spend their free time RP'ing being a plumber in a home repair RPG?

-

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most of us only remember the good part. "It sucked but I had a good time" is fairly common when I talk to other vets. Shared misery and a sense of accomplishment that most people miss when they get out or retire. I certainly don't miss scrubbing bilges or 4/4/4/8/8 vulcan death watches during ORSE workups, but fondly remember our port visit to Brisbane. And the shenanigans (I think the statute of limitations have passed by now...)

Luckily, I work in an industry that is veteran-heavy where people of my generation are "work the job, not the clock" types who have a sense of urgency in what we do. That culture can rub off on people - employees who've never served end up either that they "get it" or they move on to a job that requires less of them.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I wonder what it is about T2k that attracts veterans. In a bit of an aside, I'm really curious why a combat vet would want to RP being a soldier in a military-themed war RPG. Like, how many plumbers want to spend their free time RP'ing being a plumber in a home repair RPG?

I think it was one of the 2013 design team who described it as wish fulfillment: an environment where the PCs had all the toys without any administrative duties or chain of command.

- C.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Our forum community seems pretty evenly split between those with at least some first-hand military experience and those without.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....y+service+poll

I have a feeling that most game fan demographics skew much more veteran-lite/civie-heavy.

I wonder what it is about T2k that attracts veterans. In a bit of an aside, I'm really curious why a combat vet would want to RP being a soldier in a military-themed war RPG. Like, how many plumbers want to spend their free time RP'ing being a plumber in a home repair RPG?

-

I am not sure, but when I was deployed in 03-04 with our down time, we spent a lot of it playing Conflict Desert Storm on the original X-Box. We thought it was funny at the time, still do.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Ever heard of the term "busman's holiday"? There's a YouTuber who does a lot of railway simulator games - whose day job is a train driver. Indeed, much of the heritage railway community is filled with active or retired railway staff.

As for barriers to entry; the character creation process isn't exactly fast.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK

Ever heard of the term "busman's holiday"? There's a YouTuber who does a lot of railway simulator games - whose day job is a train driver. Indeed, much of the heritage railway community is filled with active or retired railway staff.

As for barriers to entry; the character creation process isn't exactly fast.

Well, the chargen process suffers from not having as large amount of automated tool support that D&D has, but it also isn't as complicated.

The single biggest challenge is the generation of equipment. A tool that generates a random amount of kit with options to decide some things being guaranteed (e.g. a us army character who is enlisted in infantry branch always gets an M-16 or M-4) would be helpful.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Well, the chargen process suffers from not having as large amount of automated tool support that D&D has, but it also isn't as complicated.

I fully agree the Dndbeyond system works really well for 5e. Wish I had found it when I first DM'ed

On the other hand this is the T2k13 char gen process



I thought about building a character maker (why else build a flowchart), but at a minimum providing something like this for a map (with decisions and page numbers) is something every complicated system should do.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by kato13

I fully agree the Dndbeyond system works really well for 5e. Wish I had found it when I first DM'ed

On the other hand this is the T2k13 char gen process



I thought about building a character maker (why else build a flowchart), but at a minimum providing something like this for a map (with decisions and page numbers) is something every complicated system should do.

Yep - it *looks* complicated. But the only really hard part is gearing up, which, other than the random tables, offers no advice other than "don't exceed your allotted amount of stuff."

A list of "this is all the standard issue kit a soldier in this army gets issued" would go a long way.

[Tegyrius]

Kato, when you diagram it like that, all I can say is, "it made more sense inside my head at the time."

- C.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Kato, when you diagram it like that, all I can say is, "it made more sense inside my head at the time."

- C.

Hey if I didn't like it would I have done this?

I don't care about the number of steps but the jumping around in the book was a little confusing. I know publishing has to be flexible, but after the final print is approved something with page numbers like this could be useful. That is why I built it.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by kato13

Hey if I didn't like it would I have done this?

I don't care about the number of steps but the jumping around in the book was a little confusing. I know publishing has to be flexible, but after the final print is approved something with page numbers like this could be useful. That is why I built it.

I'm in the process of typing up the entire core book rules into a personal new document, but rolling in all the shooters guides, addendum, and errata. I'm moving the equipment section after the life path section, vehicles after that, then combat, then the exploration/upkeep stuff. In my mind, that's the best order of the chapters.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by kato13

Hey if I didn't like it would I have done this?

I don't care about the number of steps but the jumping around in the book was a little confusing. I know publishing has to be flexible, but after the final print is approved something with page numbers like this could be useful. That is why I built it.

Either you liked it or you were so angry at it that you spent hours making a flowchart to illustrate how broken it is. I don't think you're that vindictive...

Good to see you posting again, by the way.

As far as the organization... fair criticism. More cross-references and a different overall organizational scheme would have been good. After doing all the layout for the weapon and equipment tables, though, I think Keith might have put out a hit on me if I'd asked for any more InDesign tinkering...

- C.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Either you liked it or you were so angry at it that you spent hours making a flowchart to illustrate how broken it is. I don't think you're that vindictive...

Good to see you posting again, by the way.

As far as the organization... fair criticism. More cross-references and a different overall organizational scheme would have been good. After doing all the layout for the weapon and equipment tables, though, I think Keith might have put out a hit on me if I'd asked for any more InDesign tinkering...

- C.

Would it have made more sense to split the firearms stats - with those related to procuring in the equipment section and those related to use in the combat section?

[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.

-