Questions, questions, questions...

[ZombieLenin]

Hey guys, I first encountered Twilight 2000 sometime in the mid-1990s. At the time I thought the setting was awesome, but just never got around to running it.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. I saw a used copy of Twilight 2000 v2 at my local game retailer and picked it up. So now I am thinking very seriously about running a campaign with my group, and I have a lot of questions as a result. I'm hoping you guys can help.

My first question is what rule set do you suggest I use? I own 2.0 and picked up 2.2 and TW2013 on drivethrurpg. I am not so worried about setting here, because I plan on emptying a lot of the lore (all of it from TW3013) and adding my own. My biggest concern is mechanics and playability.

Really though my biggest concern is a game design one. Specifically how do you guys run these games? My biggest concern is the player NPC ratio for encounters. I will have 5 players, and given how fatal the combat seems generally, I find myself scratching my head at the published encounter NPC #s.

Is the game assuming that, besides the players, the GM (or the players themselves) are running 15 friendly NPCs as well? Or do I just need to adjust down hostile NPC #s.

Honestly, I prefer the latter. I can see running 2 friendly NPCs without much trouble, but 15 is too much--for me. Partially because I don't want an entire 6 hour session to be a single combat encounter, and partially because I think that, from a storytelling perspective, it takes away from players' sense that the adventure always centers on their characters.

[Raellus]

If you mean by NPCs, enemy combatants, then it's really a matter of how challenging you want an encounter to be. If you think a published number is too high, by all means adjust it. On the other hand, you probably don't want your players to mistakenly learn that any firefight is an automatic gimme by scaling them all back to winnable proportions. A large group of enemy should have the PCs considering substituting discretion for valor. Fighting shouldn't always be the default option.

There are other factors to consider as well:

Is friend or foe surprised?
How aggressive is the enemy force? Are they likely to continue the fight after sustaining a few casualties?
How well armed is the enemy force compared to the PCs?
Who holds the most advantageous terrain?

If the PCs hold one or more of the above advantages, it's possible for them to defeat numerically superior forces. It's probably a good idea to start off with a fairly easy encounter and then build in difficulty over time as the players get more comfortable with tactics.

A friendly NPC can be useful, but you don't want to overdo it. I often insert a friendly NPC to provide exposition, local knowledge, or information pertaining to setting or plot. You can also use a PC to fill in a major skill gap in the group, or just act as a spear carrier if you or the group feel the PCs lack firepower. But, in general, friendly NPCs shouldn't outshine or sideline players' PCs. For example, officer NPCs are probably not a good idea.

[ZombieLenin]

I totally agree with what you're saying. I'd only use DMPCs to fulfill specific roles in a party, and they'd never carry the story. In this case it seems I might need them for medical treatment since, at least my players, nobody ever wants to play the perceived less combat capable medic.

I also agree about fatal systems and getting players to approach combat more realistically. My fear here is mainly that all of the systems seem extremely fatal to PCs. RPGs being what they are, combat will play a large role in most games. I was, and I guess am, concerned that the T2000 variants rely on large numbers of friendly NPCs to mitigate this in combat encounters, players aren't having to re-roll characters every other game.

Most games this fatal that I have played, like the war hammer RPGs, implement a fate point system, or "magical" healing to keep characters alive and mitigate the "your wounded, you now have to spend 5 weeks recovering and out of action."

I guess TW2013 has survival points, but still on paper it seems pretty vicious. Particularly when 90% of the published encounters seem to have hostile NPCs outnumbering my PCs by at least 3 to 1.

But besides this, do you have a recommendation on which system I should use? Which system has the most streamlined combat?

[Raellus]

As a GM, I use v2.2 just because that's what the GM in my first T2K game (as a player used). I don't find it too deadly to PCs at all. I ran a PbP campaign for six years, real time. Most, if not all, of the PCs in my game got hit at least once, some by bullets, others by shrapnel (a few by both). Only two or three (out of at least two dozen) were killed by legit, non-fudged die rolls. Kevlar body armor is a real life saver- torso and head shots had little chance of killing a PC. It takes a very unlucky series of rolls to do so. I had one player who's PC survived at least three different head shots (5.45mm and 7.62x39mm) thanks to a Kevlar helmet (in different engagements of course). It got to the point where I was having a hard time figuring out ways to accurately describe roll results in a convincing and varied manner. Suffice to say, I had to add in some concussive effect injuries to help suspend disbelief.

With v2.2's quick kill rules, combat can be deadly to NPCs, but those rules are optional, and you can choose to use or omit them when calculating damage for either PCs or NPCs (or both).

I can't speak to the other systems. I played in a v1.0 PbP and it seemed deadlier than v2.2 (the GM posted all die results). I have no personal experience with 2013.

[kcdusk]

When i first got into T2K, the first "adventure" was Escape from Kaliz(?). And i agree with Zombielenin, there was so many NPCs (in their hundreds, backed up with vehicles!), i wondered how we were ever going to "win". Or even do anything.

I didnt realise my group of PCs wasnt meant to win the twilight war. Mainly, at least initially, it was just to survive. So the first few game sessions were "escape and evade".

Once our group was in the clear and had time to rest up, we had to decide what our characters aimed to do. Harrass the enemy behind enemy lines? Hook up with a NATO force whereever they may be? Try and find a "Free city"? In many of these cases our PCs were picking fights they had a chance in, no need to fight every enemy NPC all at once.

What kind of things longer term, do you think your playing group would like to do? Find an abandoned town and fortify it? Take in strugglers? Recondition a broken down APC?

In terms of which system, most people seem to use either V1.0 or V2.2. I'd say V2.2 is most popular but that doesnt mean its best for you.

Most streamlined combat? I'd say v2.2 - and after you've run a few encounters, your own home brew options will start to creep in like they have with everyone elses systems here! I dont think anyone is playing it the same, or by the book. Ask your questions as you go, everyone is normally pretty good at chipping in with why they think something is good or bad, and leaving it up to you to decide what suits your style.

[Lundgren]

What kind of game do you plan to run? Combat heavy, or more about survival in a harsh world? Action or Drama? Linear or Sandbox?

It was a long time since I had a group to run T2k with, and the only time I have been a player in a T2k was among my worst RPG experiences ever due to incompatibility between me and the game group I joined (it felt that they were running T2k as D&D, with the Russians as some form of dumb orcs. But as they were happy with it, I say it was a good game. Just not my flavor).

If I would find a suitable group, I would run a sandbox game (I never run per-packaged adventures, so any module is just "inspiration material" to me). So the size of opposed forces would be what I think would be suitable for a unit in that area, doing the task they are doing. That could be anything from a 2 man strong hunting party, to a 500 men strong armed force relocating (with a few hundred other armed men spread out and might hear the sound of any gun fight). But then, it would only be an opposable force if a) that force still have a grudge against their nationality b) it is a marauder gang and the characters looks as easy prey c) they have pissed them off earlier in some way d) mistaken identity e) or any other snafu that might make the situation hostile.

But I guess my sig says enough about the odds would be to run into a balanced encounter in a T2k game I would be running

If I would run a game today, I would either go with the rules from 2.2 or 2013.

I have not gone over the 2.2 rules in enough details to know what I would change there. But I like that it is compatible with Traveller TNE, so if I end up liking it I can also use it in SciFi settings and "cross overs" like Star Gate-esqu settings.

The rule set in 2013 is something I really want to like. But the more I look at it, and try to handle the parts I don't like (mainly the odds of getting certain results), I'm looking at a complete rewrite. But depending what type of game you want to run, those probability curves can work in your favor, as people not aware of it most likely will think they have a very different odds of success than they really have (on 3D20L, you have 14% chance of scoring a '1', almost 50% to get '4' or less, and 90% to get 11 or less).
Among the strong points of 2013 are the three different stages of the rules and a lot of options to create non-military characters.

Whatever version you pick, steal Wildly from the others to augment it

The movie Defiance can probably give quite a few ideas for the setting

Edit: Perhaps I should add that my "problem" with 2013 is the combination of the probability curve, the curve ends at '1', and the positive bonuses are tied to the number of dices. Making it open ended downwards, and rebalance it, would probably do the trick for me. If the game is "competent characters surviving 'against the odds'", I think it will fit right in (5D20L gives slightly over 20% to score that impossible '1', 40% to score a '2' or better, and 55% to score a '3' or better, the 90% mark is around '7' or '8').

[Adm.Lee]

I'm going to echo a lot of the other posters.

- I prefer 2.2 to 2.0, there aren't a lot of changes, but some were significant.

- Kevlar is a PC-saver, it will keep them alive a lot. That said, being seriously wounded is no fun, and might take a PC out of action for a long time. My last game, I had the players roll up 2 characters apiece: 1 combat-primary, and one not, for just that reason. I should probably have had some spare NPCs join them, as some of their characters were spending a lot of time under medical care! Medics, mechanics, drivers and ammo-carriers make good roles for NPC allies, while the PCs man the guns, do the scouting, sniping, and leading.

- Deadliness: I learned very early on in v1 days: if you're the one setting the ambush, you will win. If you're not, it's going to be a bad day.

- The recoil vs. Strength mechanic can give a very realistic feel to the game, but doing the math can bog down some players. Make weapon cards with a grid for filling in those numbers, so they can be read (and adjusted) quickly.

- Don't let every encounter become just another firefight-- encourage the characters to talk, and to engage the world.

[pmulcahy11b]

The first T2K game I ever played, our characters literally had almost nothing -- because we had to escape from a POW camp. Luckily, I gave my character a high UC skill, and within 5 minutes after we started to break out, I gained my first firearm -- a Makarov that I kicked out of some sap Soviet Lieutenant's hand instants before I broke his neck with a kick to the head.

I mean we had almost NOTHING. My GM took it so far as to tell me that my character had an American BDU shirt, Polish trousers, a British hat with holes in it, and high-top tennis shoes (no socks), which also had a fair number of holes in them. And, no underwear...