4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[unipus]

I'd agree with all of that. I've been running a narrative-heavy game for about the last year (30 sessions or so), starting from the alpha rules. So there have been some changes in that time, some of them suggested by me! But overall the rules are pretty focused on speed but not completely at the expense of depth, and the overall results (in combat anyway) seem as plausible as any I've seen. It still takes half a session to run a decent-sized combat, which is not my favorite thing -- but at least it's not a full session!

[Heffe]

I'd agree with what's been said already regarding whether the new edition being any good or not. There's a couple of noteworthy topics and differences:

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.
2. The actual game mechanics - The new edition is pretty solid and dependable in providing reliable and consistent results. Combat seems streamlined over previous editions while still feeling realistic enough. It does tend to move a little more quickly while still being fairly gritty, which is nice. 3. Char Gen is, IMO, better than previous editions. Sure you lose some attributes and skills, but the efficiency gains in gameplay are worth it, at least to me. I like the new skill resolution process as well, it's a bit more abstracted, but it works.
4. The new edition is admittedly less gritty and more abstracted in other areas as well. Encumbrance is abstracted. Gear is often abstracted. The firing of bursts and automatic fire is abstracted. I imagine this will hit differently for different players. Veterans and gearheads might not like it, but for new players and folks that don't know the difference between an AK-74 and an AKM, I think the new stuff works. And for those that prefer to dig in deep on equipment, you can swap for the old lists really, really easily.
5. Some sections of the new version, I'm not sure should have been included. For instance, the base building mechanics, and solo rules, while nice additions, feel a bit rushed and underwhelming. I would have preferred some lengthier sections on these topics if they wanted to do them well. Of course, at least the new version HAS these topics.

All in all, I'm really happy with my purchase and with the 4th edition as a product. It's different, and it's going to feel different than old editions. Some stuff isn't as good, other things are better. I do think FL did a good job of capturing the spirit of the game though, all things considered. I'd recommend it.

[unipus]

I believe the solo rules WERE a last-minute addition, as it overlapped closely with announcement of The One Ring KS, and Shawn Tomkin's involvement. I also think it's unfortunate that they're stuck way in the back and labeled "solo" as they're super useful even for fully-crewed games. I use the stuff in there more often than the encounter cards!

As for combat, I find the rules to be less crunchy and precise, but actually far more realistic in both approach and outcome. At least when it comes to infantry combat. The vehicle rules are a tiny bit half-baked, admittedly.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Heffe

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.

This is my impression as well. I haven't had a chance to actually use the system yet due to other project priorities, but from reading it, it feels like the dev team had a very specific outline with a list of "game must do this" priorities, and any mode of play not on that list was not worthy of word count. It's tight design for a game that, for all its hexcrawl promise, doesn't actually seem built for true sandbox play. It's more... scripted.

- C.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Heffe

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.

I believe that it's the hex crawl system and the encounter cards. If you remove that and just use the v4 system with a "normal" RPG campaign where the GM has a scenario with a plot then it works really well as a game. I'm still learning the system but it feels faster in combat than previous versions of the game so that is good for me.

[kcdusk]

I just ordered T2000 v4, boxed set, from my local online supplier.

I wonder if i am able to get the electronic version of the rule and players handbooks for free? Like some sites suggest.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

I just ordered T2000 v4, boxed set, from my local online supplier.

I wonder if i am able to get the electronic version of the rule and players handbooks for free? Like some sites suggest.

Moderator hat on here. Might need a little bit of clarity on what you're asking there. Obviously, any encouragement of pirating copyrighted material isn't acceptable on this forum. Or are you looking for legit means to acquire electronic versions because you already own the physical versions?

[kcdusk]

on the free league site, it says if you buy the physical copy of T2K, you get a free pdf of the rule books also.

On the free league site if you buy their Alien game hard copy rulebook, you also get access to a free pdf.

By buying the hardcopy from milsims.com.au i was wondering if, similar to the free league site, you somehow get access to the free pdf of the books. I've bought local to get the item quicker and, to support local store. But by doing so i might miss out on the pdfs. I didn't know if anyone else had bought box sets (anywhere in the world) and knew if you got the free pdfs via some proof of purchase code. Or if it was only free if you purchased direct from free league website.

So, part two of your suggestion Targon. Legitimate means.

[Skunk]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

...
By buying the hardcopy from milsims.com.au i was wondering if, similar to the free league site, you somehow get access to the free pdf of the books. ...

KC, you are in luck. I purchased my copy of the box set from Milsims on release day, when it was on back-order and a few days after I received an email with links to download the pdf from the Bits And Mortar site. I wasn't expecting it, so it was a nice surprise and I got to read them for a few weeks before the game arrived in Australia.
If you don't get one in the next couple of days I'd give the Milsims store a ring and inquire about it

[unipus]

Or just contact FL with your receipt and they will probably hook you up. I was able to do this with one of their other games.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

on the free league site, it says if you buy the physical copy of T2K, you get a free pdf of the rule books also.

On the free league site if you buy their Alien game hard copy rulebook, you also get access to a free pdf.

Excellent. No probs.

[kcdusk]

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

I'm not keen on the intiative mechanic myself as it's a rather arbitrary system. I'm trying to figure out an alternative, homebrew method myself and one thing that I'm working out how to incorporate is the Press or Hold mechanic from the V3 rules. I really liked that concept as it feels more "realistic" to me, though I must stress that I don't personally have any military experience.

Has anyone else started to try to work out an alternative initiative system to the simple card draw?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

I'm not keen on the intiative mechanic myself as it's a rather arbitrary system. I'm trying to figure out an alternative, homebrew method myself and one thing that I'm working out how to incorporate is the Press or Hold mechanic from the V3 rules. I really liked that concept as it feels more "realistic" to me, though I must stress that I don't personally have any military experience.

Has anyone else started to try to work out an alternative initiative system to the simple card draw?

A quick and dirty method would be to roll the AGL and EMPATHY dice to represent both physical speed (AGL) and your "insight" into what the opposing party is planning to do (EMPATHY). The highest roll goes first and the lower die of the two rolled is compared when the higher dice are tied.

[knightofrubus]

I wonder if CUF might not be the better option as that kinda covers things like knowing how to handle being shot at.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by knightofrubus

I wonder if CUF might not be the better option as that kinda covers things like knowing how to handle being shot at.

My system was developed for Mutant year zero. There was no CUF in that version of the game engine and I have only done the most cursory reading of my nephew's Twilight pdf. The point is that there's nothing stopping you from substituting a characteristic roll for initiative.

[unipus]

I hate initiative rolls in most games. Replacing it with a card draw certainly hasn't improved it, and I've basically abandoned the RAW way of doing it since session two.

What I use instead is various hacks of these ideas, to T2k:

https://www.traaa.sh/no-initiative-a...for-mothership
(his list of WHY is like I wrote it myself)

And this, which is also so-simple-it's-genius:


(sorry it's so large!)

If it really comes down to it and I need to know "does X go before Y?" then I do a skill or CUF roll to resolve it.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

There is a specialty that let's you draw two cards, then choose on which to act. Notice: You seem to keep both, but you only act once, in either initiative slot.

It solves some of the issues of random initiative, but it creates new ones. For example, now it's really important when it's your turn to draw cards, since the pool of cards is very limited. Also, you might want to draw initiative for NPCs in groups of similar NPCs, or otherwise initiative cards will run out fast. Especially, when multiple combatants have this specialty.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by unipus

I hate initiative rolls in most games. Replacing it with a card draw certainly hasn't improved it, and I've basically abandoned the RAW way of doing it since session two.

[IMAGE]

If it really comes down to it and I need to know "does X go before Y?" then I do a skill or CUF roll to resolve it.

I certainly like that.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

I'm not fond of it, having used the full 54-card deck in Savage Worlds, and prefer that. Randomness is good, but only 10 cards seems limiting.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I'm not fond of it, having used the full 54-card deck in Savage Worlds, and prefer that. Randomness is good, but only 10 cards seems limiting.

I never played SW, but did Dead Lands, how does SW work, is it similar?

T2K has the beauty of being simple. NPCs are supposed to be grouped into teams or squads, so they don't draw individual cards. I hope there will be another mechanic, once they do a mass skirmish system. But for now, I can live with what's available. Basically, it's 10 steps of initiative and not every step gets filled.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I never played SW, but did Dead Lands, how does SW work, is it similar?

T2k 4e, each PC and NPC (or group) draws a card; SW same, but....

-- all are drawing from a standard deck of cards, plus Jokers, and the deck is not shuffled after every round.* Cards are dealt every round.
-- order of initiative is high card to low, Aces high, suit order is Spades-Hearts-Diamonds-Clubs.
-- you can pass your action, and you would hold your card for that.
-- Jokers are wild: someone who draws a Joker can go at anytime (don't think they can interrupt an action, I can't remember), and will have a hefty bonus to one die roll in their action. The deck is reshuffled after a Joker is drawn.
-- A rare few of the Edges can affect the initiative draw. There's one that can draw 2 cards per round, and keep whichever they choose (That's also in T2k4, I see.) There's one that allows one to keep drawing cards if their card is under 5. There's one that can trade cards between player characters. I think there are several that trigger extra benefits if that character is dealt a Joker, but I've never seen those in play.

There's probably some more options that I've forgotten, and I'm sure some of the different setting books have their own variations. I haven't actually played in 3-4 years, so I may be fuzzy on details.
I've never played Deadlands, but I think this is similar.

Again, I hadn't played in 3+ years, but the only-10-cards in the T2k4 deck left me a little cold. Maybe not enough variability, maybe I'm just missing the feel of shuffling a "normal" sized deck of cards?

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

SW same, but....

I see, that's really like Deadlands then. Except in DL, some cards are also really bad.

Moving this discussion here:

How does some guy have an A-10 to start the game and I got only 1 spare mag?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

How does some guy have an A-10 to start the game and I got only 1 spare mag?

He's in the rear with the gear, and you're at the tip of the spear.

Seriously though, that's a fair question.

Starting gear in 4e: too little, too much, or just right?

-

Originally Posted by Raellus

Starting gear in 4e: too little, too much, or just right?
-

4e = too little. 1.0/2.0/2.2 = too much. 2013 = about right. I like that personal equipment gives player's some decision and agency about how they play their character. I mean, who wants to play a medic with no aid kit, or a rifleman with no rifle.

Also, the personal equipment sacrifice rules in 2013 also bring something really cool to the game. When the RTO's radio stops an otherwise deadly round but now you ain't got no radio, that's really impactful on multiple levels.

If ultra low gear availability is part of the pre-game social contract and core campaign concept ('you POWs will start with nothing...the exception being Major Coolidge has his grand daddy's war watch in his rectum...') then fine.

But it shouldn't come down to a 1d6 roll or some random table that doesn't align well with the character concept. Like the 4e equipment table that will give your combat service support 'medic' some surgical tools and a set of basic tools (like pliers and wrenches), but no actual medical kit.

[unipus]

I do think the character gear generation in 4E is kinda flawed, or seems incomplete. The group gear section is a lot of fun and a great idea, but also could definitely use some more expansiveness. I understand they were under a pretty hard page limit but it just seems like both of those sections needed another full page and they'd be great.

But in terms of amount of core gear, and ammo, it feels mostly fine to me. I don't think a PC should be running for their lives after losing a major battle and still have 500+ rounds of ammo, etc. One thing 4E does very well through the low starting ammo allocation, and the general deadliness of the system, is encourage you to be cautious about getting into fights.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

Also, the personal equipment sacrifice rules in 2013 also bring something really cool to the game.

What's that rule? Is it as simple as "sacrifice something cool in exchange for plot armor"? Who gets to decide, and when?

Originally Posted by unipus

What's that rule? Is it as simple as "sacrifice something cool in exchange for plot armor"? Who gets to decide, and when?

It's a Stage III optional rule on page 209.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

4e = too little. 1.0/2.0/2.2 = too much. 2013 = about right.

Pretty much this. I always thought the 'purchase' system that the earlier versions used made zero sense. You'd end up with people trying to find ways to spend thousands of USD equivalent and 4e goes too far in the opposite direction, I presume because the design intent is to 'encourage' foraging each hex square on a map.

One thing I thought was often overlooked in games was 'the dead guy's gear.' i had a brief exposure to a 4e online game and we had a dead guy in the Bradley when we started in media res. So I said to the GM 'what about his gear? What are we doing about that?' And he was like 'uh, what do you mean?' So I was like 'well surely the guy has gear.' And the GM was like 'we're not divvying up a dead NPC's gear.'

It seemed like a pretty reasonable request to me. I mean, I know a game where a German LRRP would probably still be stuck on the wrong side of the Vistula if they hadn't been able to use dead NPC's parkas that the GM signed off on before the start to pay the ferryman.

On a serious note I think that does give some latitude for explaining 'extra' gear. I mean, let's face it, looting the corpse is usually pretty much one of the first thing that happens whenever a PC / NPC dies in any game I've been in.