v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Not mine, but from the "Twilight:2000 solo" blog https://twilight2000solo.blogspot.co...ding-home.html

"House Rule - Successes and ammo usage: When you roll more than one success in ranged combat, each additional success after the first can be used to reduce the amount of ammunition expended. For each success sacrificed, the amount expended can be reduced by half (round down, minimum of 1). Successes used in this manner cannot be used to cause critical hits. All successes may be used, regardless of source (Ability, Skill or Ammo die)."

As yet, I have not played the v4 rules yet, only read them lightly and much commentary here and on FB. I am aware that ammo usage is a point of contention. It seems to me that the designers' intent is that "you keep pulling the trigger until the target falls down or is lost somehow", which rubs a lot of players the wrong way. Some part of that resistance is a loss of player agency, as it strips away the player's control over how many shots to fire.

The above sounds like a compromise-- character skill and luck contribute to keeping down ammo usage. It does seem heavily reliant on luck, though.

Thoughts?

I'd play it where you record and track each round you fire. The AMMO DIE is obviously taking care of burst fire but for a semi-automatic or pump/lever gun, I might allow the character to "push" any failed ammo dice for rolling a success. Each "pushed" die would then roll for additional rounds of ammo expended and I would reduce THOSE ROUNDS ROLLED by the number of successes.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

It seems to me that looking for supplies in the Free League reboot seems a bit too difficult.
If I understand it correctly, each hex is 10 kilometres but only one person can forage or hunt or scrounge or fish in a hex at a time.
The implication is that if others want to do so at the same time, then they need to wander off to another hex so that the characters end up about 10 klicks apart from each other - a profoundly stupid idea when you have hostile forces potentially in the vicinity.

Upon a success, you find one ration of food and I think you can only score up to two success. Living off the land seems to be so damned difficult I can't imagine anyone with real experience of being in the wilderness would find this game satisfying or enjoyable

I didn't really like the Year Zero rules to begin with and if anything, the rules they are hashing together for their reboot of T2k reinforces my bias against Year Zero rules.

This sounds like a direct lift from MUTANT:YEAR ZERO. The nearly universal houserule is to reset the hex size from 10Km to 1Km and drop the success limits. I still have issues with MUTANT... BUT I haven't played it yet. Still, it's close enough to SHADOWRUN that it all looks familiar to me (as a dice pool system).

[Raellus]

Received an e-mail informing backers that the Beta has been delayed to continue revising background and rules. I choose to look at this as a positive development.

-

[Legbreaker]

Meanwhile, there has been zero observable work done on the documents since the kickstarter.
Now tell me they're working hard on producing a good product and have listened to feedback.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Now tell me they're working hard on producing a good product and have listened to feedback.

I can't tell you what I don't know. Do you know something that the rest of us do not?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Meanwhile, there has been zero observable work done on the documents since the kickstarter.

What is the above comment in reference to? AFAIK, no one outside the project team is able to view changes to the alpha as they are made. It's not a Google Doc.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It's not a Google Doc.
-

Yes, it is actually and a handful of people can see it.

[Tegyrius]

Did that handful of people sign nondisclosure agreements? If so, those people might want to review their NDAs to ensure they aren’t violating them by discussing the status of the development and revision process without authorization from the line developer.

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, it is actually and a handful of people can see it.

I suppose it's possible that the dev's are lying to the backers, and that no significant work has been or is being done on the project.

Is it not more likely that one of the current/active dev's simply made a copy of the Google Doc and shared it with only other current/active dev's (who presumably abide by NDA's), and that you are no longer privy to the work?

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Did that handful of people sign nondisclosure agreements? If so, those people might want to review their NDAs to ensure they aren’t violating them by discussing the status of the development and revision process without authorization from the line developer.

I wrote it. I know exactly what it says and what my limitations are. I assure you and everyone else, I am not breaching it.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I suppose it's possible that the dev's are lying to the backers, and that no significant work has been or is being done on the project.

Is it not more likely that one of the current/active dev's simply made a copy of the Google Doc and shared it with only other current/active dev's (who presumably abide by NDA's), and that you are no longer privy to the work?

I am not the only one seeing exactly the same thing.
Or is that not seeing?
Time will tell of course, but thus far, it appears nothing has happened. Meanwhile FL has obtained another title and has commenced work on it. They're not a big company so I'm not sure how much attention they can be putting on two different titles at the same time....

[Olefin]

Has anyone talked to Frank Frey to see how far along he is on the V4 Madonna? That might be a window in what is going on with the 4th edition that has nothing to do with what is or isnt going on with the Beta. Plus a new version of the Madonna sounds great to me

[mpipes]

After they put out that utterly non-sensical and illogical Alpha reveal, I have little faith. I think a half wit 7th grade wargamer - like me in the day - could have done better. It was comically bad in my opinion and indicates an unprofessional and biased mind set - not to mention anti-semantic - that marks the entire project as hopelessly tainted and inevitably doomed.

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO. And really, DOES ANYONE think any NATO/Euro-Soviet war would EVER center on neutral Sweden!!!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by mpipes

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO.

Not going to happen. It's the company's CEO who wrote it.

[mpipes]

Not going to happen. It's the company's CEO who wrote it.

Alas, I am aware. That was meant more as a resigned acceptance that it was something that should happen but won't. Hope someone likes going broke on what I would think was a major investment intended to take the company to the next level.

But hey, if you are that clueless as to what you are drafting, maybe you deserve whatever comes back at you. Just disappointing considering IMHO what they said was coming compared to what showed up.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Alas, I am aware. That was meant more as a resigned acceptance that it was something that should happen but won't. Hope someone likes going broke on what I would think was a major investment intended to take the company to the next level.

But hey, if you are that clueless as to what you are drafting, maybe you deserve whatever comes back at you. Just disappointing considering IMHO what they said was coming compared to what showed up.

I agree completely with you - it’s why I asked for my money back

[kcdusk]

Apologies for being off topic. But this thread got me looking at Modern War by Zozer games. Any comments from people that have it/used it?

[comped]

Originally Posted by mpipes

After they put out that utterly non-sensical and illogical Alpha reveal, I have little faith. I think a half wit 7th grade wargamer - like me in the day - could have done better. It was comically bad in my opinion and indicates an unprofessional and biased mind set - not to mention anti-semantic - that marks the entire project as hopelessly tainted and inevitably doomed.

They really do need to fire at least one person from the project and have a MASSIVE rewrite of the background that is not so pro-Soviet in slant not to mention anti-NATO. And really, DOES ANYONE think any NATO/Euro-Soviet war would EVER center on neutral Sweden!!!

They got Sweden so heavily involved because FL's primary market is Sweden.
Without their involvement, there would be very little sales, compared to their other products.

[Olefin]

Twilight 2000 has global appeal - the V4 ignores that completely - the rest of the world is an afterthought - and the audience they need to write for and make the game make sense for needs to be a lot less Sweden-centric or it will fail. If all they wanted to write for was Sweden then why not release an actual Scandinavian Sourcebook for the current V1 or V2.2 and be able to do the job right and not attempting to world build for a V4 and having the obvious issues that they are having.

FYI that was exactly what Marc was wanting me to do by the way - try to take the existing Scandinavian Sourcebook that had been released so long ago and try to scrub it and release it in something that would be useable - the problem is the translation problems alone would be massive - let alone the fact that it basically took a lot of the canon and threw it to the winds - and I have this little thing called real life and 55 hour a week job that kept getting in the way

[Ramjam]

I am really worried that this project will be a huge let down. I've read the rules and the timeline and have to say I hate them.

Guess its back to v2 again

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So the beta has dropped and while they have removed some of the farcical and/or utterly stupid elements of the background (the Soviet invasion of the UK for example), there haven't been many changes in regards to rules and mechanics. If you're familiar with Year Zero rules, all of this is familiar ground and some of it feels very much borrowed directly from Mutant Year Zero

All in all, I am still left with the impression that FL's reboot is not for T2k fans or even people interested in a gritty post-war survival game. It's for Year Zero rules fans and is actually pretty light on for survival aspects. For example, it is mentioned in the beta that the Referee should not bother tracking ammo and food usage for NPCs. In other games, if you have too many NPCs and too little food, then the Players have to start making some hard decisions about who to keep and who to let go. These decisions can involve some hard ethical and moral questions and can add some real depth to the gameplay.
It appears that in-depth gameplay is not being pursued by this reboot.

[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.

[unipus]

... what a strange take. Where'd you get that idea? Large parts of the rules are explicitly for campaign and especially sandbox play.

If anything, that's pretty much Free League's whole legacy as far as games go.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Ramjam

I am really worried that this project will be a huge let down. I've read the rules and the timeline and have to say I hate them.

Guess its back to v2 again

I dunno. I'm currently in the process of taking the T:2013 core and all the associated supplements I have and creating a revised all-encompasing document that incorporates the errata and captures all the shooter guides. So far the only challenge had been the unofficial survivors guide to the Czech republic because of it's format, so I'm leaving that out.

I really find myself liking these rules even better than v2 more and more. The mechanics feel like they better simulate reality and the shock and bleeding aspects in the damage model are nice. It's unfortunate that the layout of the chapters is not ideal, because you can tell it was a labor of love to develop.

The v1 rules are beer-n-pretzel. V2/2.2 feel complete, and T:2013 also complete - I like the dice pool mechanics better than a d10/d20. V4 just feels too gamist rather than simulationist.