4th ed T2K

[HoracePeabody]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by HoracePeabody

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Stick around here long enough and SOMEBODY'S going to get upset and butthurt eventually. I think it's rule 1 of the internet, or at least very close to the top of the list!

Attachment 4386

Originally Posted by HoracePeabody

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

Honesty is always the best policy. Some will get upset, but facts will always Trump feelings.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by HoracePeabody

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you on a few points and agree with you on others.
First, this will hopefully be the last commentary I make on these particular subjects.

I don't believe that you shouldn't have de-lurked, everyone and that is to say, every single person is allowed to voice their opinion (anyone inclined to read between my lines will understand this already but I'll spell it out, if Person A finds something disagreeable but Person B finds it agreeable, that does not automatically make Person A right and it does not automatically make Person B wrong - the motivation behind the belief needs to be examined so that everything can be evaluated in context - context, something the modern media and others seem determined to wipe out. Person B may actually be wrong but rarely in life are things completely black or white, there's a hell of a lot of room for shades of grey so the reality is both people may be wrong and equally, they may also be right to a degree. Which is why context is infinitely more important than the emotion behind the beliefs either party espouses).

So, having made my rant, you believe there is a problem with this newest edition, then you definitely should be allowed to say so. You might very well be called upon to justify those beliefs but you should not be made to feel unwelcome in voicing any relevant concerns you may see. We might disagree but we might also actually agree, I'd never know if you don't tell me your opinion.

Second. In regards to pandering, the reason I am completely against pandering is something you touched on - marketing.
Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.
My argument against pandering is that it does nothing to help the group being pandered to, it's entire purpose is to con them into buying product from the panderer. Did I say exploitation already?
It's not about the welfare of the group being pandered to, it's only ever about the money they can be convinced to part with.
Snakeoil by any other name.

[sellanraa]

The world has changed very little, there's just been a slight uptick in representation for other groups of people in the world, which has clearly revealed how fragile white males can be. Some have pointed out the grays, and that's what this is, a slight shift on the continuum and that is apparently a big enough shift for others to look at it in simple binary terms of it being now bad or not worth considering the new edition. Grand conclusions based on a few depictions of non-white/non-male people in pieces of art to promote a role-playing game.

It's funny because, to zoom back out to the larger topic of new game editions, this isn't really anything new though, this is such a natural cycle of gaming. It must go back to the first time a new updated edition of a game came out, there was a group that stuck with the earlier edition. It became more glaring with the internet's expansion when fragmented groups of aggravated gamers could band together and talk shit about any changes and rally one another to whatever conclusion they drew about the changes. People the reviled any (and perhaps irrationally all) changes. A group that wished the new edition will fail. I vividly remember the controversy that followed 3rd edition D&D when that was announced at GenCon. I was in the room for the announcement and the buzz from then on for quite awhile seemed to be about how different people were responding to that news after what, 10 or 11 years of 2nd edition. "Gnome rangers!?!?! Criminal!!!" Commence pearl clutching. Heck, even I've given up on the newer editions of some games like D&D. It wasn't so much that I hated rules changes, though 4th seemed goofy from a cursory glance. I was just tired of spending money and I was gaming less anyway. Now with the explosion of 5th edition, I feel left behind almost. I run a game club for middle schoolers and it seems to be a bit of a return though, so that's cool I guess. I'll stick to Torchbearer though, which is easily my favorite game in a good long while (8 hours left on the 2e Kickstarter by the way, for anyone still reading this post! )

Back to the main point: this new edition can bring new people into the folds, but I guess I'm a bit pessimistic when users stumble on this site and see that the community isn't particularly welcoming.

There are so many great resources here put together by a small but committed group of die-hards who have committed so much to keeping the game they love alive. It seems it will likely remain that way. Further, it's ironic that the some of the most devoted fans are actively rooting against the potential growth of the game they claim to love.

Anyway, maybe the new edition will stink (I certainly wasn't impressed with 2013), maybe it will be a great restart that will invigorate and grow the community. I will continue to be optimistic that it will bring new people to the fold. Maybe some of those people will even investigate the older editions or this forum for inspiration. It's a shame some will feel like they aren't welcome.

[sellanraa]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by sellanraa

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.

This statement seems to be taking the discussion down a path that isn't related to the point I was making.
The intent of my statement was not to claim that this is a modern phenomena. My claim is that, in my opinion, pandering is bad because of the reasons I gave. When they started doing it isn't the basis for my dislike for pandering, my dislike is based on the fact that they are doing it. So in that view, your statement comes across as being, what? Point scoring?

[sellanraa]

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I debated responding to that because I was worried it could be taken in the way you ended up taking it. I think the reason I decided to go ahead and post was because you chose to use the word 'modern' and you're talking about the change of how you perceive the game being marketed. Those two things coupled together made me think it was worth offering that this isn't anything new. I've never been one of those people who is interested in scoring points, only to share my perspective.

Anyway, I'll bow out now because I've offered that perspective adequately and obviously don't expect anyone in this community to actually give a shit. Part of the reason I even bothered at all was that I want curious new gamers who stumble on these forums to know that some of us are open to change and that they are welcome.

[Raellus]

There are a lot of open-minded folks here and elsewhere that are looking forward to giving v4 a chance.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of close-minded people who are OK with prejudging others' work and slagging it sight unseen (or based on a few art samples).

The majority, I believe, fall somewhere in the middle- excited about a new version of T2K but nervous that it will disappoint.

I am cautiously optimistic but as a devotee to T2K since age 12, I have my reservations (especially since I don't like the v2.2 timeline which v4 seems to be leaning towards).

In any case, let's try to get this thread back on track- constructive discussion rather than sarcasm and name calling ("woketard", really?). I'd really rather not have to lock this thread or request the admin to ban users. Thanks.

[puška]

More than debate using political buzzwords about the intent of art or writing my concern from FL (other than having a system that feeds the setting and vice versa), is their flirtation with the recent trend to have a low-prep or non-prep game session.

Maybe we're just old grumps who enjoy research, but having a gm and/or players prepare for a game they wish to be meaningful (if no other meaning than the often used excuse of "fun"), isn't a lot to ask. I really hope FL doesn't step towards this for their new edition.

That which we obtain too easily and all that...

~*~

P.S. a 1e aside here: c'mon, Raellus—Tim Bradstreet's art generic?