Announcement from Free League Publishing

[Targan]

I'm pretty used to the move over the decades towards rules becoming increasingly simplified, but in a gritty, realistic setting like T2K? Those excerpts suggest it's going a bit too far towards rools-lite for my tastes. Here's hoping the setting materials make up for it.

[Olefin]

The vehicle choices are way too simplistic - and only the M113APC or the M1A1 - no Bradley's, no LAV-25, no military trucks at all? It seems like it will be up to referees and players to have the wider choice of vehicles. I hope this doesnt mean that there will be only a very limited choice of vehicles when the time comes.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The vehicle choices are way too simplistic - and only the M113APC or the M1A1 - no Bradley's, no LAV-25, no military trucks at all? It seems like it will be up to referees and players to have the wider choice of vehicles. I hope this doesnt mean that there will be only a very limited choice of vehicles when the time comes.

It's a sample. Either there will be more in the finished base product or, in keeping with the tenets of capitalistic enterprise, they're setting up a supplemental product (like a vehicle guide, for example).

Think of it as a teaser trailer for a movie. It's designed to build curiosity, excitement, and buzz, not tell a complete story.

My point is, don't read too much into this sample, folks. It's just a tiny taste, not whole enchilada.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

My point is, don't read too much into this sample, folks. It's just a taste, not a representative sample.

Exactly. Even the current draft material some of us are looking at (but can't share much of) is still very much a work in progress with some very large gaps. The art and layout stuff they've presented so far is really just like a movie trailer - enough to give a tiny taste and nothing more. In movie terms they haven't even completed filming yet!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A closer read of what's stated in those pages, it seems to me that what's there is meant as a guide and not the "final word".
For example, the vehicle section comes across to me as quite clear that there are no hard-&-fast rules in place stating what vehicle the PC group "must" have, the Players discuss with the Ref if they can have a vehicle and what type of vehicle it will be is heavily reliant on what type of group their PCs are. If the group is from the US, the table provides a representative sample of some classes of vehicle they could get (civvy utility vehicle, military utility vehicle, APC, MBT)
There's a hell of a lot of implied leeway throughout the entire passage.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

A closer read of what's stated in those pages, it seems to me that what's there is meant as a guide and not the "final word".
For example, the vehicle section comes across to me as quite clear that there are no hard-&-fast rules in place stating what vehicle the PC group "must" have, the Players discuss with the Ref if they can have a vehicle and what type of vehicle it will be is heavily reliant on what type of group their PCs are. If the group is from the US, the table provides a representative sample of some classes of vehicle they could get (civvy utility vehicle, military utility vehicle, APC, MBT)
There's a hell of a lot of implied leeway throughout the entire passage.

That sounds reasonable to me. Of the half dozen or so games that I've been involved in over the last few years vehicle allocation was only done by random roll in one of them, and even then it was from a list of choices discussed and agreed with the GM that were appropriate to those particular PC's.

Every other time we've discussed options with the ref and then selected vehicles that were mutually acceptable.

There's a lot to unpack from their preview and I hope something things survive (i.e. encumbrance system seems to be a shift toward less tracking/inventory management, which I think could be good) and others get refined (i.e. either more branches applicable to more nations, or just go with generic 'Marines/Naval Infantry, Army, Navy, maybe the Air Force?, and let it apply to all relevant nations).

I don't think it serves the game to be so U.S. centric, especially given the the world has gotten smaller over the decades since v1.0 was published; development is being done in Sweden and not Illinois for heavens sake. 2013 did a great job with this in that their career paths are not country specific.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'm pretty used to the move over the decades towards rules becoming increasingly simplified, but in a gritty, realistic setting like T2K? Those excerpts suggest it's going a bit too far towards rools-lite for my tastes. Here's hoping the setting materials make up for it.

LOL! You run the RoleMaster system, better known as "RulesMaster." There is NO modern RPG that can carry enough "crunch" to match what you use now! I KNOW this. There are copies of Character Law, Arms Law, Claws Law, and Spells Law on my own shelf as I type this. I have this image of you sitting behind a 5-foot tall GM's Screen just to have enough space to post all the crits charts you'd need to run a decent game. From a "complexity standpoint," the RoleMaster system is NO JOKE.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

LOL! You run the RoleMaster system, better known as "RulesMaster." There is NO modern RPG that can carry enough "crunch" to match what you use now! I KNOW this. There are copies of Character Law, Arms Law, Claws Law, and Spells Law on my own shelf as I type this. I have this image of you sitting behind a 5-foot tall GM's Screen just to have enough space to post all the crits charts you'd need to run a decent game. From a "complexity standpoint," the RoleMaster system is NO JOKE.

An entirely fair observation . But even the very slim v1 T2K rules were FAR better suited to a modern combat RPG than the teaser rules we've seen for the new edition. I'm pretty good at honest self-reflection, I know full well that my penchant for complex, maybe even 'simulationist' rules isn't practical for most gaming groups. And certainly wouldn't appeal to the widest possible audience. But IMHO there's a balance to be struck, and while very light-on rules might well be the thing for today's new crop of TTRPGers, I suspect for those of us who were playing the v1, v2 and v2.2 rules when they were first published, the new rules system will seem cartoony.

As always, my comments on the new edition are in no way intended to put anyone off buying them and playing them. If a group enjoys them, play the hell out of them I say. More power to 'em.

[Sith]

As a Cold War historian, I want this game to be a success. However, I have this lingering gut feeling that I am wondering if others are sensing too.

This game doesn’t bring anything new to the table.

Version 1 was a new military based rpg that “felt” as if it could actually happen.

Version 2/2.2 introduced a new rules system

Version 3 introduced a new rules system and setting.

Version 4 “feels like” a version 2 redux... Cold War setting with a new rule set.

Even if the history is well thought out and incorporates “what we know now” in a way that brings a true sense of what could have been, it’s still the same basic game experience that 2.2 was.

Don’t misinterpret, I hope to be proven wrong. This is simply based on a lingering sense that I am feeling in the back of my brain... right next to all of the other useless bits of information. But I am wondering if anyone else is sensing the same thing?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Sith

As a Cold War historian, I want this game to be a success. However, I ha
Version 4 “feels like” a version 2 redux... Cold War setting with a new rule set.

I think I'm allowed to say it is a different background history and some of the nations involved are either on different sides or in different theatres. That said, the situation in Poland itself is roughly the same.

[Olefin]

hopefully they wont have the Italians joining up with the Warsaw Pact to the point that they get nuked - that always struck me as insane - especially once the nukes started flying - pissing off the US and UK after the nukes were being used pretty much got Italy destroyed

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Sith

As a Cold War historian, I want this game to be a success. However, I have this lingering gut feeling that I am wondering if others are sensing too.

This game doesn’t bring anything new to the table.

I find myself in grudging agreement with you. The Scandinavian setting option is technically new. However, the timeline seems to be alternate history from the same break point as v2.0/2.2. As far as mechanics... I like new and innovative mechanics but they haven't actually released enough detail (probably because they're still designing it) for me to feel like this will add anything new on that front.

I also think there's a significant portion of the fan base that doesn't actually want anything new brought to the table. So there's that.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm not particularly interested in the rules but I really want to see what they do with the Swedish setting. I have a half-baked idea to slip a T2k game onto some unsuspecting players by starting it as a Tales From The Loop type of game where the mad science is the root cause of the war.
Pipe dream maybe but I want to try it!

I have to admit to being a sucker for the marketing too. I want the deluxe edition in the tin box because... umm... because... "reasons"...

I'm also curious to see how they integrate the idea of being able to start the campaign in any location, not just Poland or Sweden.
Part of the reason I want it too is because I've really taken a liking to the art style and I want to see more in that vein.

[Hybris]

Regardless what we wish for this is going to be something new and different. It will be impossible to do this game the “way I want it”.

Today we can just look at Wikipedia and find out things that would most probably have gotten us in real trouble in the late 1980s.
This also means that we can easily find out any flaws we want and there was many. But considering all the guessing I think it went well.

Now there is a new game and I think the setting will be excellent. I do not plan to use the rules as i prefer another system for my games.

But there is also a totally new audience who may be backing this game simply because it’s the free league, and they have no connection to the earlier games and they are having a complete different idea of how to play. My own desires are somewhat unclear. After 16 years next year in military service I now know too much. Can I enjoy a “simpler” setting?
Or do I just want T2K farming simulator tabletop rpg? With the occasionally firefight and misery?

Only time will tell but it can only mean an influx of people to the 2TK fanbase and it would properly mean a loot of work for the administrator if just a fraction of the newly imitated find its way over here . In the greeter scope of things, I think it will do more good than bad. But only time will tell.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I'm not particularly interested in the rules but I really want to see what they do with the Swedish setting. I have a half-baked idea to slip a T2k game onto some unsuspecting players by starting it as a Tales From The Loop type of game where the mad science is the root cause of the war.
Pipe dream maybe but I want to try it!

The current reason for Sweden being pulled into the war is not Loop-related =P But, feel free to do it on your own. Might be a fun campaign!

I am trying to give other reasons why Sweden gets pulled in that is more believable. With all the background right now as written in draft, the biggest issue I have is how Sweden is pulled into the war. Then I have other issues regarding nukes, USA and middle east. But. It is very early in the process, so it should get better.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I have to admit to being a sucker for the marketing too. I want the deluxe edition in the tin box because... umm... because... "reasons"...

Ha ha! Me too. I showed my wife the deluxe box set, and the $40 price difference, and her response was, "so the only difference is the metal box?"

I stammered, "Um, yeah, doesn't it look cool? And it's sturdier!"

She was behind me but I could almost feel her eyes roll.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

An entirely fair observation . But even the very slim v1 T2K rules were FAR better suited to a modern combat RPG than the teaser rules we've seen for the new edition. I'm pretty good at honest self-reflection, I know full well that my penchant for complex, maybe even 'simulationist' rules isn't practical for most gaming groups. And certainly wouldn't appeal to the widest possible audience. But IMHO there's a balance to be struck, and while very light-on rules might well be the thing for today's new crop of TTRPGers, I suspect for those of us who were playing the v1, v2 and v2.2 rules when they were first published, the new rules system will seem cartoony.

As always, my comments on the new edition are in no way intended to put anyone off buying them and playing them. If a group enjoys them, play the hell out of them I say. More power to 'em.

I'm working from an open mind. I acquired Mutant: Year Zero to check them out. It has kind of a SHADOWRUN vibe to it but is very rules-lite too. I see from the posting above that they will be using a different size of die (unlike MUTANT which uses D6s) like SAVAGE WORLDS does? I'm hopeful but skeptical too, but I'll probably STILL buy the fourth (fifth*) edition to mine it for good ideas. I have taken loads of ideas from Twilight2013 (the technical 4th edition*) for use with version 2.2 (the real 3rd Edition*).

I'm still imagining you behind that 5ft GM's screen and you didn't deny having it. Do you have a window in it or do you just hang up a "GM is in" sign and narrate the image of a cold cruel world invisibly from behind that screen? at least the PCs have all their Crit charts available too...

* I hate how everyone just overlooks my beloved V2.2 Edition as the third ittineration of Twilight2000.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well considering Version 2.1 is just a rejig of the 2nd Ed. rules, from a d10 system to a d20 system and then following along we have Version 2.2 which is a better system for the d20 rules and a tweak of the history, it hasn't changed enough for most people to consider 2.2 to be a new edition.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I see from the posting above that they will be using a different size of die (unlike MUTANT which uses D6s) like SAVAGE WORLDS does?

They're using D6, D8, D10 and D12 with extra D6s to use as ammo dice (whatever that means).

The very next section seems to muddy the waters a bit by referencing D3, 2D6 and D100 but nothing about the D8 or D12. Bear in mind though it's still just a draft and nothing is yet set in stone.

They also reference the need of a set of playing cards for initiative and encounter generation, as well as a custom set (included) totalling 62 cards (although apparently you can manage without the custom set).

So, it appears to be a very different system to the earlier editions and could share some similarities with Savage Worlds. I haven't looked all that closely at the mechanics though as my focus has been on the background.

[Cdnwolf]

Fully funded in 7 minutes and 5 stretch goals reached. I hope the new game is going to succeed and rumors have it that it is ROLL20 compatible so fingers crossed.

[comped]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Fully funded in 7 minutes and 5 stretch goals reached. I hope the new game is going to succeed and rumors have it that it is ROLL20 compatible so fingers crossed.

At the very least the picture they provided of the materials in the box set (and stretch goals) look nice.