v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[mpipes]

One last thought tonight....

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!!

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!!

It will probably take me weeks to try and get my head round the mechanics. I may even wait until I get the hardcopy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by mpipes

One last thought tonight....

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

Please, someone that truly likes them chime in and say SOMETHING!!

I don't like these mechanics. They're derived from the Year Zero rules that Free League uses as the base for all their games (as far as I am aware). They suit episodic, non-campaign style games and I've seen a particular trend among fans of the Year Zero rules that seems to bear this out.
They will play one Year Zero game until they get bored with it and then they'll start up a new game with a different Year Zero game. When they get bored with that one, they ship over to the next Year Zero game until they complete the circle and come back to the first game.

I don't see any longevity in that approach, it seems to me that they are simply playing the game to kill time rather than to follow the journey of their character.
I'd rather play RIFTS with all the problems of its hashed together AD&D mechanics because at least I can expect the game to last more than a few adventures.

[Targan]

Yep, the mechanics were a dealbreaker for me from day one.

[Benjamin]

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

Personally I'd use the Cepheus Engine rules every single time in preference to a lot of other recent rules such as the Year Zero rules or the Gumshoe system

[Ewan]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

There’s a pretty good version of Cepheus Engine game rules that have been tailored for modern military role-playing. It’s by Zozer Games. In fact there’s even an add on setting called “Baltic War” that might be very well received by many of the people here.

There is even a newly released supplement called “Air Strike” that allows one to integrate modern air combat directly into their games.

Just as a disclosure, I helped co-write a hard sci-fi setting, “Orbital” with Paul Elliot, the person behind Zozer Games. He does good stuff.

Modern War is an excellent rules set and very easily adaptable to the T2K setting and already there has been a good number of supplements released for it including one for WW1.

The Baltic War supplement has a limited war between NATO and Russia in Belarus and the Baltic states that has not escalated (yet) to neighboring countries. The campaign is open ended enough that you can develop it as you see it. I might be a bit biased about Baltic War has I helped out on it but its a really good supplement.

In addition I've written a short article that was published in the Cepheus Journal which details an early 80s British section for the game (see attached).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Oh by all that's good & decent in the world of gaming...
Has anyone tried to make sense of the ammunition mechanic in this system?
It appears to have been designed by people who have no actual experience with firearms.
It's awful.

The rules seem to work on the idea that if your character is not particularly good at combat then they are going to waste ammo - I don't particularly disagree with the intent but I do disagree with the implementation. But further than that, it also effects the percentile chance of having a mishap with the firearm. It seems to be that the more you fire in a turn, the higher your chances for having a mishap and this pays no attention to skill level of the shooter.

I can't express it, or my misgivings about it, as well as the person who posted the following on the Free League forums (emphasis mine): -
https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic...=7058&start=10

Post #17 by cheeplives -
"... the way the game is set up you have a 25% chance of mishap WHENEVER you use 4 Ammo dice. That's basically saying that a pintle mounted MG get messed up a quarter of the time its used in combat. That .50 cal on the Abrams? After suppressing the enemy for a bit, it's definitley going to need to be replaced/repaired/unjammed. Once again, this is a spot where the mechanics start creating disincentives for specific actions due to flukes of the system, not because of any kind of modeled reality, verisimilitude, or reason... it's just a wrinkle with no real reason."

[mpipes]

I guess they never heard about water cooled machineguns in WWI that routinely fired upwards of 1 million rounds with no stoppages.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Oh by all that's good & decent in the world of gaming...
Has anyone tried to make sense of the ammunition mechanic in this system?
It appears to have been designed by people who have no actual experience with firearms.
It's awful.

The rules seem to work on the idea that if your character is not particularly good at combat then they are going to waste ammo - I don't particularly disagree with the intent but I do disagree with the implementation. But further than that, it also effects the percentile chance of having a mishap with the firearm. It seems to be that the more you fire in a turn, the higher your chances for having a mishap and this pays no attention to skill level of the shooter.

I can't express it, or my misgivings about it, as well as the person who posted the following on the Free League forums (emphasis mine): -
https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic...=7058&start=10

Post #17 by cheeplives -
"... the way the game is set up you have a 25% chance of mishap WHENEVER you use 4 Ammo dice. That's basically saying that a pintle mounted MG get messed up a quarter of the time its used in combat. That .50 cal on the Abrams? After suppressing the enemy for a bit, it's definitley going to need to be replaced/repaired/unjammed. Once again, this is a spot where the mechanics start creating disincentives for specific actions due to flukes of the system, not because of any kind of modeled reality, verisimilitude, or reason... it's just a wrinkle with no real reason."

I guess I'd have to ask WHY there is an "ammo dice" mechanic at all? Are we as gamers getting so lazy that we cannot keep track of basic supplies in lieu of a dice mechanic in a game where "resource management" is one of the key features? That seems like some lazy game design to me.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

Yep, the mechanics were a dealbreaker for me from day one.

Are they using the 3 sets of different D6 dice to represent Attributes, Equipment, and Skills like in the Mutant Year Zero game, OR are they using the "growing dice size mechanic" (where a D6 becomes a D8 or a D10) like in Forbidden Lands game?

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I don't like these mechanics. They're derived from the Year Zero rules that Free League uses as the base for all their games (as far as I am aware). They suit episodic, non-campaign style games and I've seen a particular trend among fans of the Year Zero rules that seems to bear this out.
They will play one Year Zero game until they get bored with it and then they'll start up a new game with a different Year Zero game. When they get bored with that one, they ship over to the next Year Zero game until they complete the circle and come back to the first game.

I don't see any longevity in that approach, it seems to me that they are simply playing the game to kill time rather than to follow the journey of their character.
I'd rather play RIFTS with all the problems of its hashed together AD&D mechanics because at least I can expect the game to last more than a few adventures.

I agree with you both on the mechanics of the game and of much of their fan base - too many said great game five minutes after it came out - which shows that they really arent sold on the campaign and character aspects of the game - which is what is needed for actual long term commitment by both the players and GM's - and which will be needed to sustain the game beyond the initial launch - especially if they are depending on fan content to sustain the game with perhaps one "official" release a year or every other year

The rules and mechanics just dont feel right - much prefer V1 or V2.2 to this - its too derivative of their other releases and not really a Twilight 2000 release as to the mechanics