4th ed T2K

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Now that you point it out, yeah, I see what you mean. I do actually like the artwork but yes, it's quite generic "post-apoc".
There's nothing about it that (so far) makes me specifically think Twilight: 2000 unlike say this: -


or this: -


As for pandering, I see a real problem with it as it ends up creating meaningless tropes - oh look we have the hip, smart, young Millennial kid, oh look we have the angry Hispanic woman, oh look we have the disadvantaged young black man, oh look we have the privileged, wealthy, older white male (who is most likely going to be the badguy, particularly if he has an English accent), oh look we have the same shallow, bland, over-used stereotypes as every other game/TV show/movie/novel out there...

Longtime lurker, just registered to comment on this.

As to the system, I was willing to keep an open mind, but as for tone and content I'm unmoved.

Unlike the others I was rather disappointed by the art samples. Admittedly, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on art, but it seems far more generic post-apocalypse than military...fine for a reprint of FGU's Aftermath, but the military vibe is kinda lost to me. Secondly, as much as I understand the pandering, the modern "angry grrl" stuff seems equally out of place.

I say all of this as a 1st Edition Twilight 2000 player since 1986, so one can chalk it up to my being a politically incorrect geezer (basically true), but I know I'm not alone...nor is my money.

[HoracePeabody]

Precisely, on both counts and very well said.

Now that you point it out, yeah, I see what you mean. I do actually like the artwork but yes, it's quite generic "post-apoc".
There's nothing about it that (so far) makes me specifically think Twilight: 2000 unlike say this: -


or this: -


As for pandering, I see a real problem with it as it ends up creating meaningless tropes - oh look we have the hip, smart, young Millennial kid, oh look we have the angry Hispanic woman, oh look we have the disadvantaged young black man, oh look we have the privileged, wealthy, older white male (who is most likely going to be the badguy, particularly if he has an English accent), oh look we have the same shallow, bland, over-used stereotypes as every other game/TV show/movie/novel out there...

[sellanraa]

Pandering seems to be used as a pejorative to describe attempts to have something that resonates with people beyond the person who is frustrated about the 'pandering'.

I'm guessing that the people who see all this as pandering are older white males who feel threatened when something isn't completely customized to their needs and myopic worldview. I mean, is it so upsetting that artwork or story possibilities might include minorities or a woman that might be angry about an apocalypse Should that not be a part of the depiction of the world of T2K

I'm hoping this re-boot will be successful and bring new people to a cool setting and expand their understanding of Cold War fears - and maybe even bring in some non 'old white dudes'. As many have pointed out, v1 and v2 still exist and will continue to function to the dwindling audience.

I'm only a 40 year old white male, but I'll be honest, I don't even understand what of the art is 'angry grrl' - or even what that means exactly. I'm assuming it's a reference to the riot grrrl movement, so it's cool that some of you are in touch with the feminist punk movements of the 90s and beyond. But, as for the art, some of it was cool, some of it wasn't, but none of it seemed outlandish or out of place within the context of the setting. It just didn't exclusively represent what you apparently want it to I guess. Going through the art again just now, I still count more white men being represented than any other group, but it's just not enough for some of you apparently.

[Raellus]

I quite like the art samples for v4. Yeah, they're a bit generic, but so was v1 and v2 art.

I'll always be nostalgic about v1 art since it was my first exposure to the world of T2K but, really, most of it is not good (no offense to the artists- I'm sure they were doing the best they could). And I don't see much in the original black-and-white interior art that was "specific" to the setting. Most of it could have worked for any contemporary war or post-apoc scenario short of full-on Mad Max or zombies. A lot of it was recognizable as adapted from photos of American troops in Vietnam, which, by the mid-to-late 1980s was already anachronistic. So, if we're comparing v4 with the original art, I don't think the criticism directed at the former is fair.

That said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their own tastes and opinions. I just wanted to share mine.

As for inclusivity... I'm afraid this thread is about to become politicized to toxic levels. Let's make sure we keep any disagreements civil and avoid ad hominem comments.

Personally, I'm all for inclusivity. I can't really understand the mindset of folks who are upset or offended by it.

I guess if you prefer 90% white dudes in your post-apoc art, there's always the v1 artwork.

[sellanraa]

I absolutely adore the v1 supplement covers and much of the pencil work in both editions. It was so fantastic for summoning the spirit of what the game could be.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Pandering seems to be used as a pejorative to describe attempts to have something that resonates with people beyond the person who is frustrated about the 'pandering'.

I'm guessing that the people who see all this as pandering are older white males who feel threatened when something isn't completely customized to their needs and myopic worldview. I mean, is it so upsetting that artwork or story possibilities might include minorities or a woman that might be angry about an apocalypse Should that not be a part of the depiction of the world of T2K

I'm hoping this re-boot will be successful and bring new people to a cool setting and expand their understanding of Cold War fears - and maybe even bring in some non 'old white dudes'. As many have pointed out, v1 and v2 still exist and will continue to function to the dwindling audience.

I'm only a 40 year old white male, but I'll be honest, I don't even understand what of the art is 'angry grrl' - or even what that means exactly. I'm assuming it's a reference to the riot grrrl movement, so it's cool that some of you are in touch with the feminist punk movements of the 90s and beyond. But, as for the art, some of it was cool, some of it wasn't, but none of it seemed outlandish or out of place within the context of the setting. It just didn't exclusively represent what you apparently want it to I guess. Going through the art again just now, I still count more white men being represented than any other group, but it's just not enough for some of you apparently.

For me personally, I didn't feel as though there was any particular pandering in the images for this new version. I wasn't even aware of any angry grrl theme within it.
My comment about pandering was berating pandering for producing shallow, ultimately meaningless themes withing the greater whole. Something can be recognised and represented without it giving off the feel of sucking up to a particular demographic. Again, I'll say that I did not get a feeling of pandering within this new edition with one exception - the rules, they appear to cater to a crowd that wants instant gratification instead of achieving a reward by working towards it.

[Legbreaker]

....the rules, they appear to cater to a crowd that wants instant gratification instead of achieving a reward by working towards it.

And that right there is why I tend to stick with older game systems. Had to play 5e D&D for the last year or so in the hope the other players would eventually want a change to something less....munchkin. Gave up a few weeks ago and just walked away from the group I've been involved with for a decade as I just couldn't handle the continuing brain damage.
When you're zooming up levels faster than an express elevator, and don't have time to try your new abilities and skills more than once before you get yet another power increase, you know something is gravely broken.

In my nearly 40 years of RPGing experience, systems like that promote cookie cutter characters and roll playing rather than roleplay. It's all about min-maxing JUST to keep up with the weakest of the other characters and give yours a chance to survive the next tavern brawl.

[Raellus]

When you're zooming up levels faster than an express elevator, and don't have time to try your new abilities and skills more than once before you get yet another power increase, you know something is gravely broken.

That sounds like it could me more of a DM'ing issue than a system issue. I'm familiar with 5e, but not with your ex-gaming group. Ultimately, the DM controls character progression- I can speak to this personally as I've done a bit of 5e DM'ing myself. However, if the other players in your group tended towards power gaming, and your DM was pandering to them, it would explain the super-fast level advancement. Whatever the case, I'm sorry that your D&D group stopped being fun. That sucks. I've walked away from a long-running group before, and it was with mixed emotions for sure.

I see your overarching point, though, and I tend to agree. RPG'ing should be more about the journey than the destination.

[HoracePeabody]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

[Legbreaker]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Stick around here long enough and SOMEBODY'S going to get upset and butthurt eventually. I think it's rule 1 of the internet, or at least very close to the top of the list!

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

Honesty is always the best policy. Some will get upset, but facts will always Trump feelings.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you on a few points and agree with you on others.
First, this will hopefully be the last commentary I make on these particular subjects.

I don't believe that you shouldn't have de-lurked, everyone and that is to say, every single person is allowed to voice their opinion (anyone inclined to read between my lines will understand this already but I'll spell it out, if Person A finds something disagreeable but Person B finds it agreeable, that does not automatically make Person A right and it does not automatically make Person B wrong - the motivation behind the belief needs to be examined so that everything can be evaluated in context - context, something the modern media and others seem determined to wipe out. Person B may actually be wrong but rarely in life are things completely black or white, there's a hell of a lot of room for shades of grey so the reality is both people may be wrong and equally, they may also be right to a degree. Which is why context is infinitely more important than the emotion behind the beliefs either party espouses).

So, having made my rant, you believe there is a problem with this newest edition, then you definitely should be allowed to say so. You might very well be called upon to justify those beliefs but you should not be made to feel unwelcome in voicing any relevant concerns you may see. We might disagree but we might also actually agree, I'd never know if you don't tell me your opinion.

Second. In regards to pandering, the reason I am completely against pandering is something you touched on - marketing.
Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.
My argument against pandering is that it does nothing to help the group being pandered to, it's entire purpose is to con them into buying product from the panderer. Did I say exploitation already
It's not about the welfare of the group being pandered to, it's only ever about the money they can be convinced to part with.
Snakeoil by any other name.

[sellanraa]

The world has changed very little, there's just been a slight uptick in representation for other groups of people in the world, which has clearly revealed how fragile white males can be. Some have pointed out the grays, and that's what this is, a slight shift on the continuum and that is apparently a big enough shift for others to look at it in simple binary terms of it being now bad or not worth considering the new edition. Grand conclusions based on a few depictions of non-white/non-male people in pieces of art to promote a role-playing game.

It's funny because, to zoom back out to the larger topic of new game editions, this isn't really anything new though, this is such a natural cycle of gaming. It must go back to the first time a new updated edition of a game came out, there was a group that stuck with the earlier edition. It became more glaring with the internet's expansion when fragmented groups of aggravated gamers could band together and talk shit about any changes and rally one another to whatever conclusion they drew about the changes. People the reviled any (and perhaps irrationally all) changes. A group that wished the new edition will fail. I vividly remember the controversy that followed 3rd edition D&D when that was announced at GenCon. I was in the room for the announcement and the buzz from then on for quite awhile seemed to be about how different people were responding to that news after what, 10 or 11 years of 2nd edition. "Gnome rangers!!! Criminal!!!" Commence pearl clutching. Heck, even I've given up on the newer editions of some games like D&D. It wasn't so much that I hated rules changes, though 4th seemed goofy from a cursory glance. I was just tired of spending money and I was gaming less anyway. Now with the explosion of 5th edition, I feel left behind almost. I run a game club for middle schoolers and it seems to be a bit of a return though, so that's cool I guess. I'll stick to Torchbearer though, which is easily my favorite game in a good long while (8 hours left on the 2e Kickstarter by the way, for anyone still reading this post! )

Back to the main point: this new edition can bring new people into the folds, but I guess I'm a bit pessimistic when users stumble on this site and see that the community isn't particularly welcoming.

There are so many great resources here put together by a small but committed group of die-hards who have committed so much to keeping the game they love alive. It seems it will likely remain that way. Further, it's ironic that the some of the most devoted fans are actively rooting against the potential growth of the game they claim to love.

Anyway, maybe the new edition will stink (I certainly wasn't impressed with 2013), maybe it will be a great restart that will invigorate and grow the community. I will continue to be optimistic that it will bring new people to the fold. Maybe some of those people will even investigate the older editions or this forum for inspiration. It's a shame some will feel like they aren't welcome.

[sellanraa]

Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.

This statement seems to be taking the discussion down a path that isn't related to the point I was making.
The intent of my statement was not to claim that this is a modern phenomena. My claim is that, in my opinion, pandering is bad because of the reasons I gave. When they started doing it isn't the basis for my dislike for pandering, my dislike is based on the fact that they are doing it. So in that view, your statement comes across as being, what Point scoring

[sellanraa]

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I debated responding to that because I was worried it could be taken in the way you ended up taking it. I think the reason I decided to go ahead and post was because you chose to use the word 'modern' and you're talking about the change of how you perceive the game being marketed. Those two things coupled together made me think it was worth offering that this isn't anything new. I've never been one of those people who is interested in scoring points, only to share my perspective.

Anyway, I'll bow out now because I've offered that perspective adequately and obviously don't expect anyone in this community to actually give a shit. Part of the reason I even bothered at all was that I want curious new gamers who stumble on these forums to know that some of us are open to change and that they are welcome.