v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Legbreaker]

And while they've removed the utterly stupid Sealionski, they've replaced that with an extra cruiser group in the Baltic as target practice for the Pact.
The background is terrible and the rules, as SSC stated, not designed for a post apoc game, and certainly not for campaign play.

[Lurken]

There are some issues I have in the rules. While they have spruced up the timeline, like the POTUS no longer nukes USSR because USSR didn't nuke Israel after Israel nuked the arabs. Though the Cruiser Jacinto have been in the Baltics for quite some time, the timing is worse. Now they start the invasion of Sweden while they are already in combat with the Soviet Baltic Fleet based in Kaliningrad. And that doesn't solve the issue of them attack the Soviet Fleet at their home port while it could just be ignored and bottled up.

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

"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.

So basically punish severely anyone who takes the initiative and doesn't do what groupthink says they should.

[pmulcahy11b]

As I've stated in the past (and severely shortened here) V4 looks and smalls like crap. If it's not too expensive (I do have some money to play with starting next month, as I made the last payment on my house this month), I'll buy v4 just to see if anything is salvageable for real T2K and its relatives (V1/2/2.2/Cadillacs and Dinosaurs/Merc 2000/Dark Conspiracy), but otherwise, I already have a bad taste in my mouth and the thought of v4 again and my lunch put it there.

[pmulcahy11b]

As a side note, what do you think that the v4 designers think would happen if you ran a real unit in combat the way they recommend?

[unipus]

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

[Raellus]

It's unfortunate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I've been disappointed by the tenor of much of the discussion here re v4.

My greatest fear is that this relentless negativity, much of it pretty mean-spirited, is going to chase off new members whose gateway to this amazing legacy game and its rich history happens to be v4.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by unipus

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

No. There's not.
They've changed some cosmetic issues, but the core problems are still there and in some cases the changes they've done have made things even worse.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by unipus

Guess there's some crow being eaten over that whole "they're not changing ANYTHING" claim. A lot of changes have been made that are results of direct feedback that myself and others gave; seems to me they've been pretty receptive and open to ideas, as long as those ideas were presented thoughtfully.

But seems like most here have been innately hostile to this game since it was announced, basically. Kind of a shame, IMO -- I've been running a campaign with it for about 3 months now and while there are some glitches it's a pretty solid system and well-suited to the world.

The problem I see is that the system isn't suitable for a sandbox or a linear campaign. For a one-shot hex-crawl, it's fine.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

As a gamemaster with...

Cannot agree more with your entire post.