v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Black Vulmea

First time poster, so be gentle . . .

Are you one of the creators of the new edition?

[Black Vulmea]

Originally Posted by Targan

Are you one of the creators of the new edition?

I backed the Kickstarter - does that count?

No, I've never tried my hand at designing a game, beyond house ruling other people's games.

[pmulcahy11b]

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe? That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered?

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe? That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered?

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

That sounds about right. The behavior of FL makes it worse. Some of us who had seen the pre-Alpha stuff complained but were ignored. I've been playing TW2K for 20 years and I want new stuff. Alas what i have seen is not TW2K.

As far as the foraging rules go I wish I could drop the FL people out in the woods and let them find out how easy it is to eat well in the woods. Mind you I am all of three generations away from Subsistence poachers.

[TyCaine]

I've been on this forum a while, I just don't post a lot, and I've been a fan of Twilight 2000 for a long, long time. Wow, actually... Longer than I thought... LOL

Anyway... Am I happy there's a new version? Definitely... But not so much for the version itself I hate to say, but more for the renewal of interest in the concept. More for the fact that with interest comes the possibility of new sourcebooks that could be revamped and refactored and slipped into my own version of the game. More for the fact that additional fluff could add color to my own T2K universe, or new rules could be retconned into my version.

My version, by the way, the game I play, is v2.2 with a whole bunch of mods and rules and such all carefully crafted and added into the game to make things...well...mine... mine and my players...

The Year Zero engine just feels....lack luster to me... I'm not sure how else to explain it, and although I happily grabbed the alpha and dug through it, I'm just not....happy with it. Will there be a market for it? I'm sure. I guess I'm either too set in my ways, or too much of an old grognard to appreciate it, either way, it is what it is.

I'm sure there will be people who will like it, and for that I'm glad there's an audience... And I'll admit I'm looking forward to new material, new ideas, new possibilities...but I'm not going to be moving to the new version any time soon... Thankfully most of my players are very much of the same opinion so will more than likely be happy to stay as is for a while, though I do have one who's less long in the tooth and is already a player of at least one YZ game but I believe understands us old folks...

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and thanks for letting me air them!
I'll go back to my semi-lurking for now...

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That's my take.

You're right on the money with all that.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by TyCaine

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

My thoughts are FL's game will be regarded much like T2013 - a variant and not core. It may be discussed from time to time, but certainly won't be a significant part of the conversation.

Time may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

[Tegyrius]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a familiar (but not identical) post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline. "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was," indeed.

- C.

[wolffhound79]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1

[TyCaine]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline.

I somewhat agree, but I feel Leg had the right thought that v4 will be, essentially, a variant...

I essentially agree with Paul as well that I for one will very much be looking to 'mine' v4 for my own game of v2.2

Like I said I'm happy at the prospect of new interest and new support, I just don't see it being of 'use' to me except as potential to be mined for my own game.

~Ty

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by wolffhound79

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take?

That shouldn't be an issue if they do, in fact, have a licensing contract for the property from Marc Miller/Far Future Enterprises. Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, I believe they do have a legitimate license. Otherwise they'd be in trouble just for attempting to profit from the Twilight: 2000 trademark.

- C.

[TyCaine]

Originally Posted by wolffhound79

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1

Huh.... That's an interesting take, I hadn't thought about it that way...

Of course, doesn't change my view of the YZ engine, but makes sense from the background perspective.

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity.

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

In retrospect, perhaps. 1e was published in 1984, so it had a 12-year offset between publication and the beginning of the war, with the start of play being 16 years in the future. We had our first major setting design meeting in June 2006; at the time, I believe (memory hazy, it's been a while) we were targeting a 2008 release. Keeping the original timeline, we might have been better served by making it Twilight: 2025 or 2030.

The challenge in any non-Cold War timeline, of course, is generating a plausible WWIII with widespread nuclear devastation but without the Cold War's preconditions for such an occurrence. An immediate post-WWIII setting is Twilight: 2000's defining trait, which sets it well apart from almost every other post-apoc RPG on the market.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

Based on 2013's reception, I find it pretty clear that the core of the fan base will violently reject any setting that doesn't let them play in the aftermath of the Cold War in which they grew up and/or served. I think you have to keep that year if you're calling it Twilight: 2000. If you modernize the setting, you have to call it a spiritual successor rather than a new edition. That leaves a future 5e with an intensively-researched Cold War setting (or one vague enough that there aren't details over which the piranhas can swarm) coupled to modernized rules.

- C.

[TyCaine]

I actually have two 'flavors' of T2K running at the moment.

One is the more standard timeline (nipped and tucked here and there, but essentially v2.2 with some more classic flavor).

The other is actually Twilight 2019, an update so that things are a little more modern (at a request from a couple of my younger players) where there's little details like having smart phones and tablets (no network for the most part, just useful for whatever is on the device) as well as a few other less obvious details, different vehicles (like the JLTV) and so on.

My group are happy with either, and I've found the 2019 setting seems to fit better for M2K.

My point being, as obtuse as it might have been, is that a v5 to me could be either an update or a classic interpretation, I wouldn't mind either, as long as the implementation of it 'spoke' to me.

For those more hard line enthusiasts though I think a v5 with a thoroughly investigated and cogitated classic Cold War timeline would be best, with, perhaps, a modern update being something more of a 'setting' supplement later...

~Ty

[Raellus]

To help keep discussion in this thread focused on the OP topic (v4 rules), I've created a separate thread for "v5" and alternate versions of T2k.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....6096#post86096

-

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by wolffhound79

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue? For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take? If so Why not just say that to everyone? I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

No. FL apparently licensed the copyright from whoever now owns the copyrights to the GDW game (FFE). The copyright owner possesses all of the rights that the writers had in their work. The writers gave up/assigned those rights to GDW years ago, which of course inured to the present copyright owner.

However, you are sorta correct. Given just how dramatic the Alpha version departs from the original - from the backstory to the mechanics - I wonder why they even bothered to get a license - it really is that much of a change. Alpha certainly does not match up with the fully compatible "continuation" that I understood FL advertised.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by mpipes

I wonder why they even bothered to get a license...

They bought the name and product recognition I think. Not like they kept much else. Paid for the goodwill associated with the title as a marketing boost for their product.

That's my theory anyway.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a familiar (but not identical) post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline. "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was," indeed.

- C.

So, I'm new here, but have been enjoying the game all the way back to v1 (withoutv ever having had the opportunity to consistently play...)

I love 2013's mechanics with v2.2's timeline. Adjust the prerequisites for the 2013 life paths to make it easier to realistically gain some of them, and expand them in line with v2.2's quantity of life paths (or Paul Mulcahy's or Mitch Berg's expansions) and I'd be happy.

I've even tried adopting 2013's core mechanics to D&D...

I would be happy to try v4 - except I've seen Tales from the Loop and Year Zero mechanics in action. Not a fan. Not a fan of them at all. I'll probably buy a pdf version of v4, for completeness only. The system just doesn't feel like it'll work well to support the flavor and atmosphere intended.

I just can't see what are essentially one-shot mechanics sustaining a sandbox campaign. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

[Black Vulmea]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

They bought the name and product recognition I think. . . . Paid for the goodwill associated with the title as a marketing boost for their product.

I can relate. That's how I feel about Mongoose's version of Traveller.

The good news was, all of my original, 'classic' Traveller books still worked just like new the day after the Mongeese shipped their edition. 'My game' didn't go anywhere.

I don't believe Fria Ligan's motives are suspect: they wanted to create an edition of T2K using their house system as the base, and they were pretty clear about that from the start. There's a legit argument to be made about taking a less-grognard oriented approach to the game in order to find a new audience. Sucks to be on the grognard-positive side of that decision, though. I wasn't involved in the playtest, so I can only imagine the additional frustration that brings.

Good news is, I pulled out my v1 box set last night; still works, just like new.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Black Vulmea

I can relate. That's how I feel about Mongoose's version of Traveller.

The good news was, all of my original, 'classic' Traveller books still worked just like new the day after the Mongeese shipped their edition. 'My game' didn't go anywhere.

I don't believe Fria Ligan's motives are suspect: they wanted to create an edition of T2K using their house system as the base, and they were pretty clear about that from the start. There's a legit argument to be made about taking a less-grognard oriented approach to the game in order to find a new audience. Sucks to be on the grognard-positive side of that decision, though. I wasn't involved in the playtest, so I can only imagine the additional frustration that brings.

Good news is, I pulled out my v1 box set last night; still works, just like new.

The question becomes whether or not they appeal to both old and new players.

Older players are loyalists who want something that is nostalgic and maybe plays a little quicker. Current generations of potential players are probably more fickle, having access to more options, with greater ease of access.

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

I'm not a fan of the mechanics. I'm probably not going to be a fan of the timeline and backstory.

If they can produce beautiful and functional maps, I'll probably continue buying their products and marry them with 2013's mechanics and v2.2's timeline.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

Agreed. I really like Free League and I own Aliens, Coriolis, and Tales From the Loop. They make gorgeous games but they very much seem to be campaign driven and not setting builders when it comes to source books. I was excited when a new version of T2K was announced but also wary. It does now appear that they bought the rights just for name recognition and just wanted to put out another post-apocalyptic RPG. This is a bit odd since they already have Mutant Year Zero and the sequel to Tales From the Loop, Things From the Flood.

In fact given how dark the setting is I contend that Free League could have easily put out a mini-supplement to accompany Things From the Flood. Call it something like Of Missiles and Machines and have it be a optional set of rules for a post-war Tales From the Loop setting. Three chapters in length it could have had a Cold War gone hot in the eighties scenario, a post-Cold War collapse with regional wars and economic meltdown and then finally extra rules to survive in the post-war/collapse setting. Easy and efficient, tying into a setting they already have established while not messing up T2K.

That’s just my idea, and I wish they had done that instead of mangling T2K.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I've even tried adopting 2013's core mechanics to D&D...

I actually ran a short campaign under a v1/AD&D rules mix in the Against the Giants books. The PCs basically bombarded the Hill Giant's Fort with mortars into a mess and they never into the dungeon underneath because they couldn't find the entrances after bombarding the fort. There weren't many monsters left to fight either.

The PCs started out well in the Ice Giant Rift, but after lots of automatic weapons fire, grenades and rockets, the PCs ran out of ammo and got wiped out in the melee that happened after that...that's why it was a short campaign. But my friends and I had a lot of fun.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I actually ran a short campaign under a v1/AD&D rules mix in the Against the Giants books. The PCs basically bombarded the Hill Giant's Fort with mortars into a mess and they never into the dungeon underneath because they couldn't find the entrances after bombarding the fort. There weren't many monsters left to fight either.

The PCs started out well in the Ice Giant Rift, but after lots of automatic weapons fire, grenades and rockets, the PCs ran out of ammo and got wiped out in the melee that happened after that...that's why it was a short campaign. But my friends and I had a lot of fun.

I wasn't using firearms in D&D. Rather, the "x skill points = y number of dice" rolling against a TN set by a controlling attribute lends itself to D&D 3.x which also uses skill ranks and controlling attributes. I converted BAB to a skill with bonuses based on class and used Armor as DR.

It worked well, but my players couldn't get over the idea of not having ever increasing hit points...

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

1. How much Swedish content is produced initially vs. later on in the sales year.

2. Feedback from players (regardless of language) - old school guys will have no problems with crunchy rules, so long as they make sense and can reasonably model the intended real world thing they are trying to model. Newer guys seem to want something that is "fun" - even if the mechanics are a terrible representation of reality.

3. Whether or not the timeline and backstory are sustainable. We all know we're fickle when it comes to this, arguing v1 vs v2 vs v2.2 vs v3 vs alternates. How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it" or will it be universally panned by old school guys regardless of our nationality?

[pansarskott]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it"

At least you won't realise the weirdness of some of the things in there. Like fighting between US and Sweden. And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pansarskott

And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

[pansarskott]

I agree, there's absolutely no reason to bring it in there in the first place.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it

That's actually one thing they got right. The ship has 'only' 12,5 m draft (wikipedia) which should be enough (although I didn't check depth for the whole route. And FL probably didn't either). sea chart over where it's anchored. Zoom out and try to figure out how to get there