v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[unipus]

Ah. That makes sense then. I agree that V4 is not super simulationist -- but at this point I truly, absolutely don't want simulationism from a tabletop roleplaying game. After many years, I find it more often than not simply tends to get in the way of the actual roleplaying and would rather have stronger narrative tools. Simulationism always breaks down at some point anyway... case in point, I've found v4 generates pretty plausible combats where movement and suppression are key to success!

Granted, v4 is also not really what I'd call a narrativist game, and frankly trying to work on that issue bothers me a lot more than fuddy & fiddly tactical details which I think it gets more than close enough most of the time.

If I want simulations, I have a library full of computer games these days. Computers are good at that!

But hey, different strokes.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by unipus

Ah. That makes sense then. I agree that V4 is not super simulationist -- but at this point I truly, absolutely don't want simulationism from a tabletop roleplaying game. After many years, I find it more often than not simply tends to get in the way of the actual roleplaying and would rather have stronger narrative tools. Simulationism always breaks down at some point anyway... case in point, I've found v4 generates pretty plausible combats where movement and suppression are key to success!

Granted, v4 is also not really what I'd call a narrativist game, and frankly trying to work on that issue bothers me a lot more than fuddy & fiddly tactical details which I think it gets more than close enough most of the time.

If I want simulations, I have a library full of computer games these days. Computers are good at that!

But hey, different strokes.

I don't need Phoenix Command levels of simulation, but the model should support that a .45 that hits center of mass should put someone down. I can deal with suspension of disbelief in D&D because not many people really understand what a sword wound can actually due (or that death was probably due to infection), but it's easy to look up gunshot wound effects...

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Lurken

Anyways, regarding NPC rules. For their food and water; "Don't track ammo or food for an NPC who tags along with the PCs - instead keep the freedom to decide when their resources run out, for maximum dramatic effect."

So, no matter how well the players act and plan, the GMs are encouraged to fuck the players over.

And regarding players who decide to let their PC go out alone for scrounging/hunting/scouting/whatever: "Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage. Putting a PC on the spot will test the loyalty of the others - what are they willing to risk to save their friend."

Basically, maximum chaos for maximum drama. The last one is basically bullying, instead of letting the die decide as in v1 and v2.

As a gamemaster with 42 YEARS of experience with every system from D20 roll over, to D20 roll under, to 2D6, 3D6, percentile, dice pool, and even odd systems like the FATE system, I have to say that this is the WORST advice I have ever seen given by a game developer!

One of the basic tenents of being a GM is that you are the Story's Narrator, the Character's source of "perception" of the world they inhabit, and the source of all of their challenges. What you are NOT... is their OPPONENT! You, along with the PCs, are engaged in telling a collaborative story that is unfolding in a fairly consistent way because of the rules of the game. This is the reason so many games actually use encounter tables or have mechanics like Initiative and Morale. They are there to remove the feeling that the players are in opposition to the GM because it is a dice roll result, NOT THE GM that creates that potentially fatal challenge for the PCs. Anything that might make the players feel like they are playing against the GM should be taboo. For a game to actually suggest that a GM use encounters to create conflict within a group by singling out weak or lone characters or NPCs IS going to create an "us versus the GM" dynamic. This often doesn't end well.

For me, the best games have been "sandbox" style games where the players and I have created a story that NONE of us expected would happen. The way I do this is to use the dice as a "narrative tool."

For instance, in combat, I have my players throw ALL of their dice for To Hit, Location, and Damage TOGETHER and I then "narrate" the result of that combined roll. An example might be that Joe hits his target in the right leg for 17 out of 20 possible damage with an M4 (remember I use 1D10 for rifle damage). I would narrate that as "your shot goes low, striking the charging insurgent in the right leg above the knee. He screams out and stumbles, slowing in his movement and grabbing for his leg."
An example of narrating a miss might be "the bullet hits the dirt by his right foot, blowing up a large clump of dirt (because of the high damage roll) and causing him to shift to his left, but he keeps on charging towards you." A really near miss (rolling 1 over) might have me narrating the PC shooting a hole in the insurgent's cargo pocket (again because of the high damage) as he charges the PC. The end result is my players always know that it was the DICE who screwed them, not ME the GM.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I don't need Phoenix Command levels of simulation, but the model should support that a .45 that hits center of mass should put someone down. I can deal with suspension of disbelief in D&D because not many people really understand what a sword wound can actually due (or that death was probably due to infection), but it's easy to look up gunshot wound effects...

That is why the backstory is SO IMPORTANT to many of the forum members. VERY Implausible results can break one's "suspension of disbelief" and this echoes throughout the game. It's the same in other mediums too. Why did the Red Dawn reboot fail? It was simply too hard to suspend the disbelief that North Korea could actually conquer any part of the US. In the original Red Dawn, It was easier to believe that NATO fell apart while the Soviet Union organized SEVERAL South American countries to assist its own invasion of the mainland US. Then, throughout the movie, the Russians are always saying "things are paralyzed at the Front" which was easier for the viewer to accept. This SMALL part of America was occupied, but everywhere else we were still fighting. In the reboot, they even say "you are conquered" which only broke the suspension of disbelief that much more.

The Story matters. That is why Tales From The Loop, Thing From the Flood, and Symbaroum all have their followings. It's the SETTING that is drawing the player base in. Twilight2000 needs the same attention to detail or it will fail.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

As a gamemaster with 42 YEARS of experience with every system from D20 roll over, to D20 roll under, to 2D6, 3D6, percentile, dice pool, and even odd systems like the FATE system, I have to say that this is the WORST advice I have ever seen given by a game developer!

One of the basic tenents of being a GM is that you are the Story's Narrator, the Character's source of "perception" of the world they inhabit, and the source of all of their challenges. What you are NOT... is their OPPONENT!

So, how is what you're describing different from being "the source of all their challenges"?

Whether you go over the very blurry line into being adversarial is pretty subjective, and I think the book has some words of caution about that as well. There are many encounter tables (and now world/story-building oracles either inspired by or written by Shawn Tomkin, who I'd credit as being the best narrative game designer on the planet right this moment) and systems that do quite plainly allow you to let the dice do the talking -- which is 100% what I have done with my own campaign, and it has made many of the very best story moments!

None of that is adversarial unless you, the individual GM, choose to make it so. And usually that sort of thing comes directly from the tradition of very oldschool games, and not at all from the newer influences that this edition tries to infuse a bit of.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by unipus

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically.

That is simply not the case and shows a marked ignorance of the viewpoints and experiences of the people here. Very few people were innately hostile to FL's reboot when it was announced, we were mostly curious but cautious and some were even excited about it.
However there have been several attempts to relaunch the game in the past and only one of them ever got to market (that being 2013).
People here feel as though they have been promised a new version of the game only to be let down and when this happens several times over the last two decades, you get the feeling that you do not want to get burnt again.

Once we saw what FL wanted to do to the game, some people did become negative towards it and some even became hostile. I am certainly one of the people who has a negative reaction to this reboot because I do not see it replicating those elements that made T2k as memorable or enjoyable for me.
Now before it's even asked, I backed the kickstarter and have access to the beta material so I have the same information as anyone else. I also own Tales From The Loop and all its supplements.
While I enjoy the background material and overall concept of Tales From The Loop, I do feel that the Year Zero rules would work well for it given that your characters are inexperienced young people. However for the characters of T2k, they have acquired a much larger range of skills and experiences and newer game systems like Year Zero and also including D&D ignore the range of skills so as to "streamline" the play experience.
This is meant to speed up gameplay and simplify everyone's workload and reduce book-keeping.

Personally I find this lack of skills to be immensely unsatisfying, for example, where in the past editions of D&D you had a rope skill, now you default to Intelligence for any rope skill test. It's quick but oh so dull and does not give any impression that the character has a unique collection of skills and experiences that make them somewhat special and a useful asset for the group.
As for some of the other rules in Year Zero games, I find them dumb to the point of insulting. The one person per 10 kilometre hex for scavenging is a prime example - it's an artificial limiter to force gameplay and being so artificial it's incredibly immersion breaking because anyone who has ever gone into the forest to collect mushrooms or berries can tell you, you do not need to scour a 10 kilometre area to find a lot of food - and that's even without any sort of hunting.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

As a gamemaster with...

Cannot agree more with your entire post.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by unipus

None of that is adversarial unless you, the individual GM, choose to make it so. And usually that sort of thing comes directly from the tradition of very oldschool games, and not at all from the newer influences that this edition tries to infuse a bit of.

But how would you interpret the two key quotes I found in the BETA? The GMs are encouraged, not told you can choose to be an adversary. And it may be a reason the adversarial GM-style has gone the way of the dodo. It is not fun and constructive for a long term campaign where all participants wants to have fun.

In v1, v2 and v3 (v2013), there are zero encouragement to be adversarial. It is all quite dry in that aspect. Only that during this and that condition, you are to roll on the encounter tables and resolve the results.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

That is simply not the case and shows a marked ignorance of the viewpoints and experiences of the people here. Very few people were innately hostile to FL's reboot when it was announced, we were mostly curious but cautious and some were even excited about it.
However there have been several attempts to relaunch the game in the past and only one of them ever got to market (that being 2013).
People here feel as though they have been promised a new version of the game only to be let down and when this happens several times over the last two decades, you get the feeling that you do not want to get burnt again.

Well said, most of us was hyped here when FL promised a remake of v2. Then it soured quickly as the background and rules were lacking, non-sensical and heavily departing from the established T2k-norm. Which was a reason why v.2013 got so much criticism, it deviated too much from the established T2k-norm. While v.2013 have been receiving a resurgence now for the rules inside it, and only the rules as they managed to describe things more sharply accuratly than in v1 and v2. It was just that the setting had massive issues, like the Chinese intentionally poisoning the world with lead-infused toys.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

...like the Chinese intentionally poisoning the world with lead-infused toys.

Well, that aspect doesn't seem so far fetched now does it after the events of the last year and a half... :/

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Lurken

But how would you interpret the two key quotes I found in the BETA? The GMs are encouraged, not told you can choose to be an adversary. And it may be a reason the adversarial GM-style has gone the way of the dodo. It is not fun and constructive for a long term campaign where all participants wants to have fun.

In v1, v2 and v3 (v2013), there are zero encouragement to be adversarial. It is all quite dry in that aspect. Only that during this and that condition, you are to roll on the encounter tables and resolve the results.

In most games of a certain age, there's frankly zero encouragement or guidance of how to do much of anything beyond roll dice on encounter tables. Whether this was because nobody had any idea of how to do otherwise, or that they wanted to sell more poorly conceived adventure supplements, I can't say. But, it that sure did lead to some boring and tedious gameplay when I was just getting started with RPGs in my teens. Might have been different if I had happened to know any amazing GMs, but those were much rarer then. The published materials didn't have much help to offer a rookie.

The GM shouldn't be adversarial, but they must portray an adversary. They must be the face of challenges. Maybe we're different, but I don't want to spend much time at all on a game that's just random encounter rolls. I want to play a game where the person doing most of the storyweaving actually has the tools to do that, where surprising things happen, and where they're tied to character moments that make them impactful. It's no surprise at all that one of the things OSR games have tended to add to their classic roots are things relating to character motives, and XP triggers beyond "you killed the baddies," and so on. These things make for interesting, surprising stories that feel collaborative. They were wholly absent from the original games.

There have been a few passages in the FL book regarding "how to run the game" that have made me shake my head a bit or think "Hm, that's not how I would do it."
(But quoting them out of context is just proving my point about the innate hostility here.) Several of those have now been edited after people such as myself pointed them out. Nonetheless I think it's far, far better for the game/hobby by far that books provide aspiring GMs with guidance and storytelling tools that are entwined with mechanics, which is what they're mostly doing these days.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

[unipus]

If you hang on every word of the published setting then yeah, I can see some major disappointments with the alpha, particularly (and most of this giant thread about "rules and mechanics" has actually been bitching about the setting).

I'm personally amazed to find that people do that, though. The setting is the easiest thing in the world to tweak. You could have changed it to anything you wanted, from day one, and I don't think I know any GMs that run games in 100% the setting the book tells them. Tweaking that to suit your own tastes is a big part of the fun!

In fact, with lack of OOBs and so on until now, my own campaign has moved forward almost entirely using 1st edition maps, timelines, and so on. I had issues with a number of aspects in the alpha setting, so I changed them, and had a crisis in Poland itself be the flashpoint for the war at large. Maybe they liked this idea from me personally, I don't know -- but I'll note that it is actually now the official background in the revised setting. The French background has been revised based on feedback from French players. The UK background has been revised... blah blah blah. It is all much, much better now and aside from a few small details, I wouldn't hesitate to put right in front of players as written. Those objectionable details that remain truly do not matter. My players don't need to know whether there's an aircraft carrier in the Baltic! It's a non-issue. Bugs on the windshield.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by unipus

The GM shouldn't be adversarial, but they must portray an adversary. They must be the face of challenges. Maybe we're different, but I don't want to spend much time at all on a game that's just random encounter rolls. I want to play a game where the person doing most of the storyweaving actually has the tools to do that, where surprising things happen, and where they're tied to character moments that make them impactful.

In my game I am running, I am following the encounter tables religiously. Why? Because encounters are DEADLY (both ways). If I follow the encounter tables, I cannot be tainted by GM bias against or for my group. However, I try to make sense of them and use them no matter what the outcome is. My group encountered a German Large Unit south east of Kalisz and then some. How the hell did they end up there? So, I used the week to figure that out, and even found exactly what unit it should have been. And so on I continue, all travelling encounters that are to be randomly decided are woven into the world with a believable context. Another highlight was the randomly genned smugglers, and the two man Marauder gang in an OT-65 that was genned during night while the group had decided to camp out at the now vacated smuggler hidout. Why where the two men in an OT-65 there?

It is questions like that, that makes the encounter tables work.

And it is very unfair to label me as hostile. Before the release of material I was hopeful for the system, game and developer. If you go back, I tried to dissuade negativity before we knew stuff. As I own and have played a number of FL's game, and had very much fun. I knew they did the systems in a very non-granular way, but they promised me that they would adhere to the feel and spirit of T2k v.2, in setting and rules. They did not.

And are you calling me cherry picking quotes when I quote the entire bullet point where they recommend not to track NPC's water and food, or when they encourage GMs to pick on sole PCs (without even considering the fact that PCs may lack radios, hard to decide to help the lone PC, if there are no way for the lone PC to call for help).

[Olefin]

"And regarding players who decide to let their PC go out alone for scrounging/hunting/scouting/whatever: "Pick one poor soul among the PCs and spring the worst of the encounter on them. This works particularly well with a PC who has left the main group to scout, hunt or forage. Putting a PC on the spot will test the loyalty of the others - what are they willing to risk to save their friend.""

I cannot believe that any gaming company would put a statement like that in their official release. Now I really am glad I asked from my money back.

Oh and Unipus - the setting of the game and its background feeling right is 100% important when you are making a reboot of a classic franchise like Twilight 2000. This isnt something new where you can do what you want since its all new unbroken ground - or a reboot of something so old that literally no one is still around playing the game.

This is a game system that has had four new releases in the last few years and thousands of long term hard core fans who still play the two original systems.

Ignoring those hard core fans as we done in the Alpha release isnt a good way to do a reboot. And the changes that were done for the beta, from what I have seen, were only done begrudgingly after a lot of people pointed out just how amazingly stupid the idea was of a Soviet invasion of the UK (while apparently the RAF and RN was out for tea) or an American nuclear carrier sailing thru a channel barely 30 yards wider on each side than the carrier itself is to get to where it supposedly was docked to where five or six guys with RPG's could have done a lot of damage to it.

Yes they want to attract new fans - but you dont do it by basically ignoring the hard core gamers who kept the dream alive in the process.

Also a viable campaign setting with things like Orders of Battle and what divisions and units are around is very important if you are asking others to write releases for the game. The four new releases for the game were done by various authors because we had a viable campaign setting to write them around. We didnt just ignore the setting and make up our own - we counted on the designers of the game to give us one that made sense as part of their responsibilities of doing a proper job of the release in the first place.

[Raellus]

First off, welcome Unipus. Believe it or not, many of us here welcome fresh perspectives on T2k.

When I started this thread, my intent was to create a space to discuss the v4 rules and mechanics in an unbiased manner. I was hoping this discussion would be constructive- highlighting what works well, what could be improved and, more importantly, how (in a practical way)- that sort of thing.

Instead, the level of discussion has often wallowed at the level of "This sucks! Rewrite it entirely!" Not constructive.

IMHO, v4 is far from perfect. But let's give FL a little credit. The Beta includes numerous changes, some of them substantial, to the rules (and setting) presented in the Alpha. They've managed to produce a better game than they what they rolled out initially. It's still got issues, but instead of ranting, why don't we try to come up with workable solutions here?

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unipus

If you hang on every word of the published setting then yeah, I can see some major disappointments with the alpha, particularly (and most of this giant thread about "rules and mechanics" has actually been bitching about the setting).

I'm personally amazed to find that people do that, though. The setting is the easiest thing in the world to tweak. You could have changed it to anything you wanted, from day one, and I don't think I know any GMs that run games in 100% the setting the book tells them. Tweaking that to suit your own tastes is a big part of the fun!

In fact, with lack of OOBs and so on until now, my own campaign has moved forward almost entirely using 1st edition maps, timelines, and so on. I had issues with a number of aspects in the alpha setting, so I changed them, and had a crisis in Poland itself be the flashpoint for the war at large. Maybe they liked this idea from me personally, I don't know -- but I'll note that it is actually now the official background in the revised setting. The French background has been revised based on feedback from French players. The UK background has been revised... blah blah blah. It is all much, much better now and aside from a few small details, I wouldn't hesitate to put right in front of players as written. Those objectionable details that remain truly do not matter. My players don't need to know whether there's an aircraft carrier in the Baltic! It's a non-issue. Bugs on the windshield.

Actually those details do matter a lot if you are either writing for the game or if you want to campaign somewhere other than just Poland. The Twilight War is a global event - that was one thing that the V2.2. had right - it gave enough details you could set a campaign almost anywhere.

FYI not doing simple OOB and details on units by doing saying they are all basically destroyed with a "the entire NATO armies are overrun and run for the hills" (from the alpha release) is basically abrogating your responsibility as a game designer.

There is a ton of information out there on OOB's, equipment, etc. - hell why didnt they take a stroll thru Paul's site?? And between the various V1 and V2 books and the information we have posted here you could do an OOB's section in probably about one day. Its the same time period as the old timeline and Marc Miller is on board - have a feeling he would have said sure just take the old books, update them a little and call them V4 - all you need to do is add the Swedish units.

Thats why seeing those OOB's and other things that were in the Beta is encouraging - because the lack of it in the Alpha (or even something as simple as "we will get to all of that in the Beta" was definitely a major "oh crap" moment for many of us)

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Lurken

In my game I am running, I am following the encounter tables religiously. Why? Because encounters are DEADLY (both ways). If I follow the encounter tables, I cannot be tainted by GM bias against or for my group. However, I try to make sense of them and use them no matter what the outcome is. My group encountered a German Large Unit south east of Kalisz and then some. How the hell did they end up there? So, I used the week to figure that out, and even found exactly what unit it should have been. And so on I continue, all travelling encounters that are to be randomly decided are woven into the world with a believable context. Another highlight was the randomly genned smugglers, and the two man Marauder gang in an OT-65 that was genned during night while the group had decided to camp out at the now vacated smuggler hidout. Why where the two men in an OT-65 there?

It is questions like that, that makes the encounter tables work.

And it is very unfair to label me as hostile. Before the release of material I was hopeful for the system, game and developer. If you go back, I tried to dissuade negativity before we knew stuff. As I own and have played a number of FL's game, and had very much fun. I knew they did the systems in a very non-granular way, but they promised me that they would adhere to the feel and spirit of T2k v.2, in setting and rules. They did not.

And are you calling me cherry picking quotes when I quote the entire bullet point where they recommend not to track NPC's water and food, or when they encourage GMs to pick on sole PCs (without even considering the fact that PCs may lack radios, hard to decide to help the lone PC, if there are no way for the lone PC to call for help).

I wasn't referring specifically to you, regarding hostility. There are far worse offenders. But I think Raellus is 100% correct... seems like a lot of people decided to circle the wagons before the Indians even went on the warpath. Personally, having read the entirety of v4 now multiple times, and re-read the entirety of v1 (and many of its supplements), I find it impossible not to see the same DNA between them in many many places.

Anyway. Here's the section that immediately follows what you posted about NPC ammo and food:

As a general rule, NPCs follow the same rules as PCs during combat unless otherwise stated. However, in order to minimize bookkeeping and avoid slowing combat down, a number of simplified rules for minor NPCs are included in chapter 4 of the Players’ Manual. These are all repeated here, for your reference.
You are never obliged to use the simplified rules – for key NPCs, it’s
often worthwhile to use the full rules, just like for PCs.

There's more on the same theme, of course, elsewhere. Posting optional rules for accelerating the game as if they were the game's sole gospel fits the very definition of cherry-picking, to me.

My opinion? A GM should absolutely be biased... towards whatever will be fun and exciting stories for the group as a whole. If totally random encounters get you there, then that's all well and good. Like I said, the beta now also includes a new solo play section that is full of very useful "oracles" -- and tools like that are a godsend for GMs. My own campaign has a couple of overarching narratives. I use the random encounters when I feel they won't be a distraction from progress or goals the players are actively seeking. If they don't fit the situation, or I think they're likely to throw the group way off track, then I simply toss them out. If the players are aggressively pursuing a particular story beat, and we're all having fun doing it, but they're running low on food? Well, guess what, I'll make sure the next encounter has some food, so that the story doesn't grind to a halt while we go fishing for an hour. Learned that lesson too many times in too many games. Other times, if things are feeling more directionless or freeform, then I'll turn up the pressure on resources and remind them that survival isn't easy, until they come up with a new objective and a new story emerges.

Am I executing bias in doing that? Absolutely, yes. That's my job: to curate an overall interesting story that isn't just a bunch of random happenings, and that is tied to what the characters (and more importantly players) are interested in exploring. A different sort of GM, yourself perhaps, could maybe do that entirely with random encounters. As you said, context is key. If you're able to weave context into these things 10 times out of 10, then fantastic. Personally I find it's more like 6/10, but nonetheless I do use the will of the dice constantly to flesh out small details, motivations, and story events. Being surprised is a great thing for GMs and players. But only if you can tie the surprise and randomness back into a coherent story somehow. The book has a number of thoughts on how to do this, how to make events personal, how to draw conflict out of happenstance. IMO, all of that is very good stuff. It is a philosophy on how to run a rewarding roleplaying game. Many of the games of the '80s lacked any such philosophy. The language and knowledge didn't exist. Here were some tables, and you're on your own. GDW T2K was a little better than most, but it was still essentially a fairly empty framework that you had to figure out how to build a house around without a lot of help.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually those details do matter a lot if you are either writing for the game or if you want to campaign somewhere other than just Poland. The Twilight War is a global event - that was one thing that the V2.2. had right - it gave enough details you could set a campaign almost anywhere.

FYI not doing simple OOB and details on units by doing saying they are all basically destroyed with a "the entire NATO armies are overrun and run for the hills" (from the alpha release) is basically abrogating your responsibility as a game designer.

There is a ton of information out there on OOB's, equipment, etc. - hell why didnt they take a stroll thru Paul's site?? And between the various V1 and V2 books and the information we have posted here you could do an OOB's section in probably about one day. Its the same time period as the old timeline and Marc Miller is on board - have a feeling he would have said sure just take the old books, update them a little and call them V4 - all you need to do is add the Swedish units.

Because it wasn't done? All of that stuff is in the beta now.

[unipus]

Anyway, thanks for the welcome, Raellus. I've actually been lurking here for quite a long time, enjoying some of the better resources I've found. Why I let this conversation, of all things, coax me into making an account is becoming more and more mysterious to me.

I mean, I'm not a stranger to this kind of gatekeeping behavior. It occurs in every fanbase. And it's usually a very small, very loud minority doing it while everyone else gets on with enjoying the thing they like (or, if they don't like it, realize it's not a personal attack on them, and goes about their lives). It does strike me that by now, though, FL has probably realized it's pretty unpleasant and risky to engage much with the entrenched T2K community, because it generally doesn't look like a winning battle when you read threads like this!

But meanwhile they've introduced quite a lot of new people to the game and setting (only 2 of my 5 regular players had ever heard of Twilight), and the people coming at it with fresh eyes seem far more capable of giving it a fair evaluation. The product has turned out to be quite successful for them so far; I personally am hoping that it continues to be so and that this gives them the runway to continue to develop the game and stories around it. GDW didn't get it all right on their first pass (or in any pass, really) but with time they continually evolved and (usually) improved on it.


edit: in the spirit of the actual topic of the thread I'm happy to share some of my house rules and suggestions that have made things run a little better, IMO. I'm happy to report that I'll be retiring a lot of them, though, since the beta seems to have adopted some of them directly and made changes to other things that work just as well.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unipus

Because it wasn't done? All of that stuff is in the beta now.

And that is why the complaints occurred with the Alpha release - because that info wasnt there and when questions were asked about them the general response was "the units are destroyed why do we need an OOB or Army guide"

And similar comments were made on the FL board to things like the Soviet invasion of England being completely unrealistic as well as the timeline issues - i.e. it was very dismissive of those who weren't gushing with compliments

Thats an example of why there was so much negativity to the Alpha - and if the Beta shows they listened to us then maybe V4 will be successful

[unipus]

There's no longer an "if," you could read it right now and see exactly what was done. I'm happy to report that they changed a lot more than I expected, personally.

One of the only things they did not change at all was one of my core complaints with the rules, unfortunately, which is that there just aren't quite enough skills IMO. I may still end up house-ruling this one, lots of good ideas were tossed around I think, but it's kind of a big haul.

[Lurken]

Raellus, we have been trying to find solutions. And they did improve the timeline and other bits in the rules. I'll give them that.

However, for us (me) it has been like shouting at a brick wall. Because we are all sending letters out to sea, with no communication going the other way. Though we did see them react in some places in the book, so far.

Some things are not to be improved, some things are to be removed.

In closing, we are not toxic, imho. I'll give that we are very defensive of a property that we have been squating in while building and improving it. Now, that property was bought up and we were evicted from it. All we can do is to watch all our hard work being tossed out. Of course we are not enthused by this.

[Olefin]

Personally to me the biggest mistake that FL made was to even release the Alpha at all. It had all the hallmarks of a rushed out, well we told them they would have something so we have to release it, kind of release.

They should have just swallowed their pride, only sent the Alpha out to a select group for reviews and said give us a few months longer and made the first official public release what was just released as the Beta.

I suspect if they had done that it would have been recieved a lot better.

[unipus]

That would be a terrible decision. The alpha phase did exactly what it was supposed to do: draw a significant amount of feedback, which they were then able to review and adapt from.

If they skipped that phase all you would have gotten was a more-complete alpha, an even bigger wave of hysteria because no one has seen any of it. The background would likely have been in the same state it was in the alpha. The rules would not have been diversely tested and reviewed. And they'd probably be in much less of a position to change any of it. In other words, the situation that the angriest (and wrongest) voices here said was the case about the alpha would have actually been true.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Lurken

In closing, we are not toxic, imho. I'll give that we are very defensive of a property that we have been squating in while building and improving it. Now, that property was bought up and we were evicted from it. All we can do is to watch all our hard work being tossed out. Of course we are not enthused by this.

I love T2k as much as the next superfan. I've tried to do a bit of building of my own (see my sig). So, to some degree, I can understand the passions that were aroused by the Alpha. That said, I don't get why some folks here seem to take FL's vision personally. Like, none of us here own T2k. We didn't get evicted from anything, and our hard work hasn't been tossed out. It's still here, and people can still use it if they like it. IMHO, the belief that if a creator doesn't do sweeping fan-service to the Old Breed that they are somehow being mean or disrespectful or ungrateful or whatever is the very root of toxic fandom. Bitter is not a good look.

FL dev's don't have time to read and respond to every single upset fan's "suggestions". And I don't know about you, but if I was a dev, I wouldn't want to respond to frothing "fans" telling me that "X is ridiculous, Y is stupid, and Z is a joke", or essentially "start over". That was the gist of a lot of the "feedback" that ended up being ignored. I really don't wonder why.

A point I've tried to make again and again is that it's not so much what someone says that's important, but how they say it. No one likes to receive harsh criticism. It tends to make one defensive and less open to constructive feedback.

And, frankly, the new generation of gamers probably doesn't really care what we old grognards think anyway- especially when the nature of OG fans' opinions is, "the old stuff is awesome; new stuff sucks". I teach high school (juniors, 16-17ya) and I see generational shifts in taste every day. For example, I love the original Star Wars movies and loathe the prequels with every fiber of my being. My current crop of students love the prequels and don't think the original trilogy is all that great. There's no love like first love, I guess.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Personally to me the biggest mistake that FL made was to even release the Alpha at all.

That's a good point. From computers to big industry, alphas (with a few hiccups) are only distributed to a select few for testing. Usually, they're kept in house during their alpha period.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

FL dev's don't have time to read and respond to every single upset fan's "suggestions". And I don't know about you, but if I was a dev, I wouldn't want to respond to frothing "fans" telling me that "X is ridiculous, Y is stupid, and Z is a joke", or essentially "start over". That was the gist of a lot of the "feedback" that ended up being ignored. I really don't wonder why.

A point I've tried to make again and again is that it's not so much what someone says that's important, but how they say it. No one likes to receive harsh criticism. It tends to make one defensive and less open to constructive feedback.

QFT. I'm happy to say that a number of suggestions and rules changes that I personally came up with, or developed with their community, are included in the beta. But it sure wasn't became I came in screeching; it's because I (or somebody) pointed out an issue, made suggestions of practical, attainable changes, and worked with other people in the community to come up with something that actually worked. Now we have armor that isn't useless after being hit one time, armored vehicles that can't routinely be penetrated by lucky 5.56 rounds, SMGs and pistols that have a reason to exist, Coolness Under Fire rules with a little more depth to them, and travel rules that are consistent throughout, among plenty of other things I'm sure I'm forgetting -- not least of all, a significantly updated background. So it seems like the process worked just fine.

[Olefin]

Well luckily some of us who made a fuss were listened to as well - otherwise Tomas wouldnt have changed his mind

Quote from Tomas email to me

"Soviet invasion of the UK. Agree, maybe not very realistic, but we need it (or some version of it) to make the UK an interesting game setting. Many of our players are in the UK, and will want to play Twilight: 2000 in their home country."

So at least some of what I and others were telling him as to how unrealistic the Soviet Sea Lion was finally got listened to

And glad that they changed some of the rules too - especially the travel rules which at the time made basically no sense

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Going back over this thread (and others) I see the term "simulationist" used a number of times to describe T2k. I do not particularly agree with that label but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. For me, it conjures up images of tabletop wargaming or strategy type boardgames.
I've never viewed T2k as recreating a NATO versus WarPact, strategy game, or worse, some USA vs. the Evil Empire Russian Red Bear, jingoistic Red Dawn type power fantasy game. It has always been a survival genre game set in the immediate post-war and with a strong military theme & flavour.
So with that in mind, I readily see that the term does apply in one sense and this is to me, actually quite important to explain why I personally like 1st & 2nd Ed. rules for Twilight: 2000 and do not particularly like the Year Zero rules for Twilight: 2000.

The original game was written by various people, some of whom had a number of years in the military or were combat veterans or who had a long term interest in the military. When they wrote the game it was with that experience informing them of how to write a game that was trying to replicate a military experience.
As one of the people here who has spent time in the military, the GDW editions and also 2013 feel "right", that is to say, they are quite effective at replicating that military feel because they were written by people who knew what that "feel" was.

The impression I get from FL's reboot is that it is written by people who have had very little experience either with or within the military. Even it's lead military consultant has very few years in the military and was little more than a junior NCO who it seems was simply riding the GI Bill to pay for his college tuition. It feels like a game that is from the perspective of people who have watched plenty of war movies but have little real world knowledge of being in the military and to paraphrase one of the developers, they wanted to "recreate the thrills of car chases and gunfights you see in the movies". It very much feels like it was informed by all the "cool" stuff that non-military people believe makes the military interesting. For me, someone who has military experience, it breaks immersion too much.

Ultimately, for me, FL's vision of T2k feels like it is nothing more than Mutant Year Zero with the mutants removed and a Twilight: 2000 skin plastered on top and as such it leaves me wanting more, oh so much more.
But I also recognise that these newer games are not written for people who grew up with gaming in the 1970s-90s, it appears to be very much applicable to the 2010s crowd of gamers. These gamers have a different idea of what makes a good game. It seems to me that they want instant gratification in their games rather than work towards the reward and these newer games quite often cater to that.

It's unlikely I will ever find the Year Zero rules & mechanics satisfying for a military themed game like Twilight: 2000. I actually think they work fine for Tales From The Loop but in that game, you role-play children or young adolescents, people who have not had the time to collect significant life skills & experiences. But for the Twilight: 2000 setting, where characters have typically experienced a full run of primary and secondary education, probably had jobs and all of whom have at least four years in the war? They just don't go far enough.
To me, the rules & mechanics of the Year Zero games do not scratch my itch the way that a military themed game should.

So for me, the solution is obvious. I will pillage FL's reboot for any useful materials but it will not be worth using the rules to replicate the kind of military genre game that I want. I will continue to use the 2.2 rules with a few tweaks. There is no value for me in trying to make the Year Zero rules work when I have a fully functioning set of rules already available that work for what I want.

[Legbreaker]

I'm actually insulted that the somebody who is supposed to be neutral and unbiased is being so confrontational and accusing everyone who disagrees as "toxic".
It's the language of division and bigotry. This is not good enough and the person should really take a step back and think about their actions and words.

Some of us have done our absolute best to advise FL on their product, calling attention to the problems. To be accused of being "toxic" because we want something that meets the overall communities expectations is utterly abhorrent!

[mpipes]

For me its sorta like what Kathleen Kennedy did with Star Wars.

She killed off Han. She turned Luke into a loser, and Princess Leia into Mary Poppins. A Palatine was put in Luke's shoes. We had bombers dropping bombs in space, Leia slapping a Rebellion pilot, a formal gown wearing Admiral, a magic knife, Lando sleeping with a droid (?), and to really cap it all with the cherry on top....we had a cavalry charge on a Star Destroyer. Basically, to many if not most, and certainly to me, it was a train wreck.

In short, she ignored the legacy material as much as possible, and she destroyed most fans' favorite characters in one way or the other. So now, Disney is starting to feel the sting from a core IP property LOSING MONEY. Funny how fans can react to "improvements."

IMHO FL is on a similar track. They will not persuade anywhere near a majority of fans here to buy this product. I think they should go back to the background of the original and make a number or reasonably REALISTIC changes and get rid of the more ridiculous elements, They want Sweden in the mix, have an errant nuke go off in the country or a group of Spetsnaz cross the border and kill a bunch of civilians. You can even have the Soviets invade Sweden to capture an airbase to support Frontal Aviation. And you could put an airborne Brigade into the UK to start massacring civilians to draw off a division or two (its like civilians in the UK own guns or even pitchforks).

Basically, all they have done is put a Year Zero game out with a WWW3 setting and called it - TWILIGHT:2000. For me, it is beyond silly to buy the rights to a game, and then write something that is completely different. That is why many of us here were totally aghast at the Alpha release. Other than the name, it had NO relation to the GDW originals. It was their concept, with their timeline setting, and their rules. Far from being an updated and expanded edition (as it were) with updated rules, graphics, etc.. it was a TOTALLY different game, and not one that is likely to capture the attentions of fans of the GDW game. Now that is fine. Gung ho and yay FL we hope you make money, but don't expect fans of the original to be sold on it.