T:2013 Missing Weapons?

[pmulcahy11b]

I guess I have to admit -- I never really took a good look at T:2013, even though I was given a free PDF copy by the designers and actually bought some of the supplements. Guess I have some reading to do if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

...if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

But this is the internet! You're not supposed to actually THINK before commenting!

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I guess I have to admit -- I never really took a good look at T:2013, even though I was given a free PDF copy by the designers and actually bought some of the supplements. Guess I have some reading to do if I want to comment in an intelligent manner.

I'm a fan of the mechanics - roll a number of d20s based upon number of skill points you have, and try to roll under the target number which is your controlling attribute. So - firing a rifle uses Longarms skill and the TN is your Coordination attribute. There are modifiers based upon various factors. An unskilled person rolls 2 d20s and has to take the higher roll. Max skill points in the skill gets you I think 8 d20s. First successful roll that is lower than the TN gives you margin of success (so if TN is 12 and you roll 8, MoS is 4). Each additional successful roll adds 2 to the MoS. There are equivalents of crits and fumbles as well. The total MoS gets added to the basic damage of the weapon.

The "hit points" are nice because they are used as a comparator to the damage rather than having damage subtracted like in D&D. The results of that comparison determine wound severity and additional effects (shock, bleeding, instability, etc.)

I don't know how realistic it is, but it gives the feeling of realism. For those that like fiddly bits, the Stage III ballistics adjust damage and penetration based upon range.

It's a shame really, that it never got the mainstream love it deserves. It's a worthy successor, mechanics-wise, to v1 and v2/2.2.

[Tekrat04]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I'm a fan of the mechanics - roll a number of d20s based upon number of skill points you have, and try to roll under the target number which is your controlling attribute. So - firing a rifle uses Longarms skill and the TN is your Coordination attribute. There are modifiers based upon various factors. An unskilled person rolls 2 d20s and has to take the higher roll. Max skill points in the skill gets you I think 8 d20s. First successful roll that is lower than the TN gives you margin of success (so if TN is 12 and you roll 8, MoS is 4). Each additional successful roll adds 2 to the MoS. There are equivalents of crits and fumbles as well. The total MoS gets added to the basic damage of the weapon.

The "hit points" are nice because they are used as a comparator to the damage rather than having damage subtracted like in D&D. The results of that comparison determine wound severity and additional effects (shock, bleeding, instability, etc.)

I don't know how realistic it is, but it gives the feeling of realism. For those that like fiddly bits, the Stage III ballistics adjust damage and penetration based upon range.

It's a shame really, that it never got the mainstream love it deserves. It's a worthy successor, mechanics-wise, to v1 and v2/2.2.

I couldn’t agree more. The setting leaves a lot to be desired. The game mechanics on the other hand are to polar opposite of the setting. When I first encountered best of dice pools (DP9 Heavy Gears) as a game mechanic I feel in love with the concept. T2k13 is the best system that use this type dice mechanism.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tekrat04

I couldn’t agree more. The setting leaves a lot to be desired. The game mechanics on the other hand are to polar opposite of the setting.

I believe the majority of people have a similar opinion. The rules aren't perfect, but with just a little more polishing they could well have been.
The setting on the other hand....

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I believe the majority of people have a similar opinion. The rules aren't perfect, but with just a little more polishing they could well have been.
The setting on the other hand....

Well. It *is* difficult to prognosticate the future in a world where information moves quickly. When the V1 rules were created, the timeline was based upon a well-developed existing cold war that goes hot and a phone call was the fastest way to communicate. The news cycle want 24/7.

I'm the 90s when v2/2.2 was made, the internet was just starting to become a thing (Gopher search was it, and Mosaic was the tool for this WWW thing.). When T:2013 was created, you could get the news on YouTube. Now? We got to see a Myanmar coup live in real time on a Twitter feed.

It's not my cup of tea, but I hold no ill will for the T:2013 authors. Their timeline has events that have been seen in multiple post-apoc media depictions: Under the Dome, The Walking Dead, Jericho, etc.

[Tegyrius]

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

You say that now, but what if 20 years from now some central/eastern European developer wants to 2077 that stuff!?

[Targan]

I was a fan of the T:2013 rules from the moment I got the book, and remain a fan. I've promoted those rules far and wide and consistently defended them when they've been criticised. Not sure where the idea came from that I was ever a hater. As for the setting, that's one of those things that some old guard T2Kers could never be happy with unless it exactly mirrored their vision of how it should be. I doubt any two random T2Kers could ever exactly agree on the "perfect" timeline.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

So, how would you have done things differently if you were doing them now?

The use of range bands and physics-based damage modeling seems like it might be overkill in comparison to a d100 system or d&d, but it gives a better "feel."

The wound system is very tight - more detailed than a d&d hit point system where you are at 100% until you cross the magic 0 hp, but not a death spiral like some other rpg systems.

The modifiers to determine what your final TN is for ranged combat *is* a bit complicated, but not so unwieldy as to be impossible to use. The other thing that takes some work is figuring out what hard, normal, easy, etc. are when determining non-combat TNs.

My opinion: the only thing that would significantly improve the rules (and supplements) is a chart showing weapons, equipment, and vehicles availability by era with an expanded set of each of them via supplements . This would certainly be handy to allow people to set up Twilight:2000, core Twilight:2013, Twilight: WW2, etc.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

- C.

Interconnected Phone apps could do that for a table top game and something like roll20 could do it online.

Tech is way different now as you can expect everyone to have a phone. I am really waiting for someone to do this well.

[Stackmouse]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Looking back at it from 15 years after we started design work, my biggest regret about the Reflex mechanics was trying to do too many things in a tabletop game engine that work much better with a computer mediating the action. I took too many design cues from X-COM.

I have been using the Reflex system as my main tool since the early playtesting times of the T:2013 I have streamlined some parts of it and modified others, but I have used the core rules for my homebrewed fantasy (Harn-styled) campaigns, for WoD/Werewolf, and latest for a MechWarrior/BattleTech-campaign.

What I would like to see is an official reflex system v2.0 engine, as a settings independent book. Damn, I'd love to contribute in such a project