T2K v1.........or v2 ??

[Webstral]

(Actually, it should be now as well -- suppressive fire has its value, but I think it's more important to kill your enemy than firing off thousands of rounds and simply causing them to withdraw, or hoping that some of your un-aimed fire hits someone. I say that as someone who did take the half a second or so that it took to put your sights on a target and kill them with one shot.)

Amen.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Neither system is great, IMO. I find them both rather awkward and bulky. I know v2.2 better since that's the one I've used the most. I've used v1.0 once or twice and it's OK, but I felt more limited in terms of the characters that I could create. Theoretically, it should be more flexible and offer more options for character creation but in reality, I found that it does not.

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.

I think a combination of v1.0 and v2.2 (point buy + career paths) would be better. There would still be skill paths with pre-determined basic skills and suggested skill suites for each career, but each career term would be allotted a certain number of skill points to spend however the player saw fit. Players could buy skills from a general pool. This would provide some structure but still give the player the flexibility to really customize his/her PC.

I also think that the number of skills- but not necessarily the type of skills- should be equitable for each career. I really don't like how some careers in v2.2 get beucoup skills and skill options whereas others get significantly fewer.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't have a problem with the career path system but sometimes the v2.2 career skills lists seem incomplete and/or limited (the background skills list is a good example of this). Also, certain careers aren't even listed in the v2.2 core book. Paul's site does a great job filling in the gaps but, since he is more generous with his skills alotments, you can't really use his tables to complement the official v2.2 stuff- you have to use on or the other.

That is a problem with my character generation system --it's nothing like the v2.2 system. I simply came to the conclusion that the v2.2 character generation system was better off trashed completely, and I was helped by a couple of guys who used to post regularly (one name should be familiar to some of you -- Orrin Ladd). That said, I'll admit that my system is quite the messy kludge, but it accomplished the results I was after -- more flexibility in character generation.

[leonpoi]

The thing that bothers me about the character generation system of v2/2.2 is that it doesn't really allow for the diversity of skills and experience that many people IRL have, especially at higher rank or lengths of service. I've seen it posted several times on this board and its predecessors that they couldn't even generate themselves or many people they've known in life using the V2/2.2 system.

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period. I give characters 2 skill points per 2ndary activity which they can use to increase attributes as normal for 2 points or actually put into 2 skills. One skill must be 2ndary act the other can be or can be from career. This gives a little bit more flexibility with skill choice and if I let them take hell early this means that they have a couple more skill points to diversify.

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous.

[Cdnwolf]

(Looking innocent)... so something like the Twilight 2013 rules... minus the horrible storyline

[weswood]

I have a bastardized system I use based on TSR's Top Secret/SI character system with mostly my own combat rules. It's a D100 system, combat runs fast and fairly deadly.

The careers are mostly my own inventions. A player buys the skills needed from a pool based on his Intelligence. He can also buy rank using his skill points, and each level of ranks adds a preset number of years to the character's beginning age. The beginning age is determined by 16+ 1d4, plus any modifications for rank or education.

[pmulcahy11b]

The oldest character we had was a 63 yo tanker. It was ridiculous.

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

[pmulcahy11b]

I do agree with this. I find it's hard sometimes because of the 4-year career blocks - you quickly end up old, especially with a 4-year compulsory hell period.

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

[leonpoi]

Hey, a few of our National Guardsmen we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were that age -- IIRC, one of the doctors deployed with one of the Guard units to Iraq made news simply because she was 67, and one of the oldest soldiers the US ever deployed to a combat zone.

Well I stand corrected, especially when you consider that in the tw2k context this tanker was 59 before the hell 4-year term, plus it is WW3 afterall.

[leonpoi]

I've never used 4-year blocks -- I always used 2-year blocks. IRL, depending upon your enlistment commissioning packages, a commitment period can range from 2-8 years, but enlistment periods for most MOSs are 3 years or less. (Basically, the more you want from the military, the longer the commitment you'll have to make.)

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this

[pmulcahy11b]

Seems reasonable. I tried something like that myself but didn't know what I wanted to do with attribute loss from age or if I should prorate skills from careers. What do you handle this

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

[leonpoi]

It was probably wrong, but I basically ignored attribute loss from age when I was actively GMing.

I only meant during char gen., but I suppose if character's lived long enough (4 more years) then I'd think about it. You make a good point though. If I ignore it during char gen then it doesn't matter how long terms are and players can kind of choose their age, within the limits of their experience and careers.

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore

-------
Poor Gabe The Gun, he's going to look at this thread and say, "wooo, too much info, might play gunmaster instead."

[pmulcahy11b]

Anyway, the character gen system is mostly fine with me, and I'm over 30 now and not 15, so those 33 year old characters don't seem so ancient anymore

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...

[Cdnwolf]

I'll be 48 next month, and unfortunately I know for a fact that attribute loss with age is real...

AND thats why they invented Viagra

[pmulcahy11b]

AND thats why they invented Viagra

LOL! Maybe that's why I'm seeing a urologist on Thursday for pain in my testicles -- they're clogged up!