Design Discussion: Barriers to New Player Entry for T2k

[unipus]

The designer's notes in the addendum of v1 are very clear about that being one of the original design problems: they wanted to do a military game but needed a way to get around the problem of pulling rank. The solution was the apocalypse and the collapse at Kalisz. Arguably, this situation really only sorta solves the problem. It's playable, but really you're still going to run into many situations where rank matters. And in many cases that's still a problem when you're trying to run an RPG.

[Tegyrius]

Unfortunately, I think they invalidated that design decision by making rank a mechanical function of character generation. There is an offset in 1e in that characters with high stats are ironically less likely to have high rank. In 2e, there's no down side: with promotion granting extra skills and rank determining starting funds, higher-ranking characters begin play at a higher level of capability.

- C.

[Olefin]

That’s one reason I have always said that GM’s need to make sure that things are realistic as to what players can be - ie the chances that everyone is some kind of Special Forces is not based on the reality of the military. I have played officers and enlisted men and like both sides. And rank in the Kalisz scenario really doesn’t mean as much when you are cut off and alone. I can see it being much more of an issue in campaigns where the military is still organized - ie places like Kenya or Iran or in the UK where the British govt is still in control - then it’s more a military simulation versus a fight for survival.

In my original campaign I was a captain but all I was in command of was my tank. The group made decisions as a group and my rank only came into play in the game a couple of times when we ran into other organized US units - at least until we got back into Germany.

[Targan]

I find myself slightly confused as to why people playing a military-based game would be annoyed at the constraints of a rank-based hierarchical structure. If you don't like that social environment, why are you playing that game? It's like playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms setting and saying dragons and magic annoy you. Like... wut? Military rank structures aren't a "barrier to entry" to playing T2K. They're a function of the setting.

[unipus]

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding? That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

[Tegyrius]

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k?

- C.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k?

- C.

answer - mainly yes - its a game about the military - its not a game primarily set up for civilian characters - which is not to say you cant be a civilian who used to be military and thus still have the skill sets you used to have - think about the fun guys in Grenada the characters run into who used to US military who still have their skills - just a little bit too old to still be running around like they used to - still not the people I would want to run into in a dark alley

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unipus

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding? That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

The game is also a military simulation - its not all about adventure and survival - thats why you have the RDF, Kenya, and Korean Sourcebooks - all of which are places where there are functioning chains of commands. And the Last Submarine Trilogy - which a lot of players love - is all about having to do the adventure within a chain of command once you have the submarine - then the players are playing a pure military mission - same with most of King's Ransom - until you get to go for the goodies

And D&D also has adventures where you arent just going around raiding dungeons and exploring - i.e. you get sent on a mission either because you pissed off the wrong person or to pay off a debt or any of a number of reasons where you arent the one running the show - its the King, Prince, Mage, etc.. who sent you off to complete the mission - or in this case quest

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by unipus

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding? That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

When the dragon can burn your PC to a crisp or swallow whiole, that's all the formal authority it needs...

The original Kalisz scenario using 5th ID requires a GM that enforces a party that is "realistic" in makeup - armor, infantry, field artillery, or cavalry units, and division or battalion support (engineers, cooks, MPs, Intel, etc.) No green berets, no seals, etc. If there are rangers, they're tabbed not scrolled and they are part of one of the 5ID units. Civilians could be locals. Govt agents could be CIA, DIA, locals, etc. Other nationalities would be German, British, etc. or Pact forces deserters. There *might* be 2MarDiv liaisons, but they'd likely be part of German 3rd Army or US IX Corps. All of the noncombatant support soldiers are gonna be in, FREX, the HHC of the applicablee battalion or division, not in one of the actual rifle companies...

It also requires work on the part of the GM to properly outfit the party. Which requires the GM to look at an ORBAT and TOE info.

The challenge is finding players who are willing to work within the bound of the rules and campaign. It is akin to a D&D game where one of the players wants to pick a class or race that isn't part of the campaign or wants a backstory that doesn't fit.

As to falling back to organized units - that becomes the goal rather than the adventure. In the core v1 campaign, you can spend months real-time adventuring in the areas surrounding Kalisz without the GM ever advancing the campaign into getting close to seeing another organized NATO unit.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

When the dragon can burn your PC to a crisp or swallow whiole, that's all the formal authority it needs...

The original Kalisz scenario using 5th ID requires a GM that enforces a party that is "realistic" in makeup - armor, infantry, field artillery, or cavalry units, and division or battalion support (engineers, cooks, MPs, Intel, etc.) No green berets, no seals, etc. If there are rangers, they're tabbed not scrolled and they are part of one of the 5ID units. Civilians could be locals. Govt agents could be CIA, DIA, locals, etc. Other nationalities would be German, British, etc. or Pact forces deserters. There *might* be 2MarDiv liaisons, but they'd likely be part of German 3rd Army or US IX Corps. All of the noncombatant support soldiers are gonna be in, FREX, the HHC of the applicablee battalion or division, not in one of the actual rifle companies...

It also requires work on the part of the GM to properly outfit the party. Which requires the GM to look at an ORBAT and TOE info.

The challenge is finding players who are willing to work within the bound of the rules and campaign. It is akin to a D&D game where one of the players wants to pick a class or race that isn't part of the campaign or wants a backstory that doesn't fit.

As to falling back to organized units - that becomes the goal rather than the adventure. In the core v1 campaign, you can spend months real-time adventuring in the areas surrounding Kalisz without the GM ever advancing the campaign into getting close to seeing another organized NATO unit.

Remember at the time it was released they didnt even have special forces yet, or at least ones that were detailed out - they were introduced with the RDF Sourcebook. People forget that because its been a long time since the game was originally introduced.

Now you can build special forces characters on day one. Given the original scenario especially as it builds into Krakow I could see a character being a Green Beret that either had got separated from the unit going after Reset or a survivor of the ambush - or was from a unit that was supposed to meet up with them and got steamrollered by the Soviet attack just like the 5th did.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

When the dragon can burn your PC to a crisp or swallow whiole, that's all the formal authority it needs...

The original Kalisz scenario using 5th ID requires a GM that enforces a party that is "realistic" in makeup - armor, infantry, field artillery, or cavalry units, and division or battalion support (engineers, cooks, MPs, Intel, etc.) No green berets, no seals, etc. If there are rangers, they're tabbed not scrolled and they are part of one of the 5ID units. Civilians could be locals. Govt agents could be CIA, DIA, locals, etc. Other nationalities would be German, British, etc. or Pact forces deserters. There *might* be 2MarDiv liaisons, but they'd likely be part of German 3rd Army or US IX Corps. All of the noncombatant support soldiers are gonna be in, FREX, the HHC of the applicablee battalion or division, not in one of the actual rifle companies...

It also requires work on the part of the GM to properly outfit the party. Which requires the GM to look at an ORBAT and TOE info.

The challenge is finding players who are willing to work within the bound of the rules and campaign. It is akin to a D&D game where one of the players wants to pick a class or race that isn't part of the campaign or wants a backstory that doesn't fit.

As to falling back to organized units - that becomes the goal rather than the adventure. In the core v1 campaign, you can spend months real-time adventuring in the areas surrounding Kalisz without the GM ever advancing the campaign into getting close to seeing another organized NATO unit.

Sure, you CAN. You can also beeline it west and with a bit of luck have achieved your goal within days. I'd argue that if your goal is to fall back to organized units and you spend months adventuring around Kalisz then you're either not very good at adventuring or you're not very good at setting goals. :P

Or, more likely, you're enjoying the game and willing to break immersion a bit to keep it going rather than the break the game to keep immersion. In that sense, all the stuff you posted as "requirements" really aren't... they're wishlist items that some players may want or even demand, but they are not fundamental to general enjoyment of the game or setting.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

Military rank structures aren't a "barrier to entry" to playing T2K. They're a function of the setting.

I kinda agree if you play RAW. But this thread has made me think, "Has anyone ever played a totally civilian party?"

I think setting might be the wrong term, maybe suggested game-play/rules (particularly v1)? The world "setting" could allow you to theoretically play any person in the world who is still alive. You don't have published materials, but that is what creative people are for.

I was going to work on a supplemental wiki for the DC Groups stuff, where we (the forum collectively) could for lack of a better term "Make up" stuff for every US and Canadian counties and other countries districts. Truth be told when I had the idea it was for Morrow Project but a duplication of work is much easier than starting from scratch. I always thought fleshing out the areas around where board members live would have been fun.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k?

- C.

I think going with what I wrote above, you have a group consisting of all civilians in a town not directly effected by war, but needing to fight off marauders, travel far for medicine or spare parts, try to recover some lost treasure. Sounds pretty T2k to me, but you would need creativity or a support network to assist in filling the "gaps" in the rules.