v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Lurken]

For better and worse, no, the old guard is owed absolutely nothing in this new edition. Painful as that may be. Thankfully the older editions are still perfectly playable.

If the Old Guard is own nothing, then by Jove! Let the Old Cuard vent in peace. Painful as that may seem to new comers and fans of v.FL and FL. They have steam they need to vent and process. It may not be pretty, but somehow it will come out.

In due time, after they have vented their steam, they will pick apart v.FL and use what ever nuggets may be there. Just like they did with the Third Edition. It had plenty of good rules and concepts, which it has gotten praise for in the years after. After the steam have been vented out.

[sellanraa]

Ha, fair enough. I'm not opposed to you all venting and know that anything I say won't stop it anyway. I just feel it's a shame that folks who may stumble on the forum out of curiosity will have the impression that the venting creates.

All aboard the rage train!

[Southernap]

Now back to our regularlly scheduled programming

Okay, so looking at the rules and the mechanics of the Beta.

I am still feeling like the "life path" option isn't fully working like V2.0 that I was used to playing.

• First hiccup is the 2D3 roll to determine how many increases one can get. No one I know makes a D3 die, so why not just say roll a 1D6.
• Also, the letter designations for the main attributes are throwing me off. As well as the dice attributed to those letters. From D12, D10, D8, D6 for the A-D. Also considering that most games still have a point buy system, why isn't that included
• The starting gear selection seems cheapened. In the sense that in either V1 or V2 you could end up with at least a five figure base money to spend on stuff. The agonizing part was trying to decide to spend on some medicine or an extra battery for a radio; if not spending on that M3 Bradley vs having some extra food. In V4 its pick a gun, get a d6 roll for grenades and reloads, then get basic soldiering kit. That seems like a bit of railroading to me.
• The specialties seems very interesting and akin to what I have seen in other RPGs about prestige classing or advantages. I will have to dig out my old rules for Top Secret, but I think they did something similar and it when used well it works to round out some rolls. Just needs players to think long term of their characters growth path in relation to the rest of the group..
• However, to go with those specialties, there maybe should have been something akin to a resulting decrease or negative modifier for something else. Say for example Brawler gets you a plus one with close combat unarmed, but a negative one with any weapon in your hand in close combat rolls. Again to make the players think long and hard about how they want to build their character
• The Moral Code, Big Dream, and Buddy choices seem like things to force cohesion and team play amongst the players. Let alone seem like things that are force feeding the GM with adventuring hooks. I think the Moral Code seems too similar to the classic alignment trope of other RPGs. The V1 and V2 didn't have that since it was assumed in a post apocalyptic world moral codes would have to be flexible. Similarly the rule for the Big Dream seems really ambiguous with what could represent that "concrete action" for the GM to award extra XP during a session. This can be a judgement call that can lead to heated discussions at the table.
• I sort of like they truncated the skills down to about 12 basic and core skill sets. because trying to fill out all the different skills could be complicated in both V1 and V2. At the same time, there is part of me that is missing the building of a typist company clerk who was shanghaied to be with a small fire team just before the last big push.
• The rules for post session changing buddies, new moral code, and unit morale seem overly cumbersome and can cause confusion if there is a need for long term campaign with the same folks.

The mechanic of where you are in either Sweden or Poland and the "Intel" briefs leave some things lacking. If I source both V1 and V2, they provided both units that existed in certain locations and a map showing where folks were placed. As well as major points of interest where the players could go, avoid, or even be started in. It would be great to know those things as the starting adventure. Heck maybe even given some major NPCs in the region that the PCs could run across.

I think that the settlement tables should have been included into the encounters chapter. If not had lead the chapter on scenarios before going to those starter scenarios. They do an interesting bit of setup for the GM, and really seem like stuff that the GM should be using prior to the gaming session. Since its about 6-9 rolls at the table to help define a settlement.

I haven't fully looked at the combat, injury rules yet. I have still been trying to digest it all after sending an email to get the download link since FL never sent me an email about either the Alpha or the Beta being released even as I was a backer.

[Tegyrius]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"

Yes, the former seem appropriate labels for those who are determined to destroy any material that doesn't meet their personal standard for what T2k "should be." This is especially apt when they are unable or unwilling to articulate that standard.

As for the latter - the point may have been missed for the context, but the toxicity problem extends far beyond this thread, and has for some years.

It's us older players who's kept the game alive for the better part of three decades since GDW closed their doors - we've kept it going longer than GDW even existed! In my case I've been involved since 1984, the very year 1st ed was published, 37 years ago.
Now given that, shouldn't WE have some say in how the game is written and developed into the future
Besides FL spending money to buy the name, what right have they to toss out everything that's come before, declare even GDW's materials a "non-canon" and attempt to force feed us a substandard product
They've had ample opportunity to consult with the wider community, but I can understand why they've tried to keep their pool of advisors relatively small. However, as one of those who was invited to provide input to their draft even before the kickstarter and Alpha release it was abundantly clear they weren't all that interested in anything that didn't fit what THEY wanted. Almost nothing said by those not on their payroll was acknowledged, let alone incorporated.

Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.

- C.

[mpipes]

Y
Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.
- C.

I agree 100% with a bit of a caveat. When I company purchases a license and solicits funds based on representation that it is producing a new edition - as was done here - said fans of the GDW games are ENTITLED to have expectations that the company in fact plans to produce a new edition. NOT A WHOLE NEW THING WITH NO RELATION TO THE PREVIOUS EDITIONS. All FL has done is produce a WWIII role playing game with their Year Zero system, add in a wholly new background, and slapped a "Twilight:2000" title onto it.

Why get a license you may ask, well, typically in this sort of situation, it is to sucker in fans of the previous edition to buy the product. I won't go so far as to call it fraud, but this definitely looks like a bait and switch marketing gambit, which while not illegal is not wholly ethical either.

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially. As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

I hope FL makes money and it is a success, I really do, but I doubt they will get much, if any, from me.

And I still wonder, why even bother getting a license!!!!

[Raellus]

When Helping Doesn't Help

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially.

If said "help" reads like the critique below, then how can one be surprised- let alone offended- that it was ignored/rejected

As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

Setting aside the issues of tone and presentation for a moment, does the above assessment of the v4 content still/equally apply to the Beta

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, seems like the problem is immediately obvious just from reading that one paragraph. They didn't imply that, you inferred it. You read something that was never written and pinned a lot of false hopes on it. No wonder it doesn't live up to your expectations. But that's not on FL.

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

[Olefin]

I'm real curious what some of you guys were expecting.

I don't think it's a big shock that almost no RPG today is built on the foundation of the old GDW games. They had some interesting systems (certainly for character generation), but not a lot of elegance in those rules and not much you could push them before they were completely unwieldy. They're great reference (with a grain of salt), but I feel no nostalgia at all for the task of actually gaming with them. The "instant gratification" I am looking for (as a '90s gamer) is a system that is intuitive, quick, rich in theme tied to mechanics, and detailed enough to generate great, specific stories.

Hmm lets see - what we were expecting was Twilight 2000 - you know the game and timeline we have been playing since the mid-1980's - my first campaign started three months after the game was released for instance as soon as my GM got his copy and digested it enough to be able to run it - and that it would be faithful to the timeline and the things that made the game so good that it survived not being supported or having new things released for it for nearly 21 years with a lot of faithful adherents

In other words what we expected was a reboot that was faithful enough to still be recognizable but with some changes - i.e. what they did to Star Trek for instance - it was still Starfleet, Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al but slightly different - and thus it was accepted.

This is a rip it up and start over reboot - its like trying to reboot Star Trek and its Earthfleet, no Federation, no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy and telling the fans to accept it because at least you get some Star Trek. That is 100% not the right way to do it.

There is a great History Channel show right now called The Food That Built America - the Coke episode is a perfect example of what is going on here - Coke tried to fight Pepsi and was losing - so what did they do - they put out a new version of Coke that was supposed to be superior to the old version - and no one liked it - and it almost killed Coca Cola. They only saved the company by bringing back the old version. Lets hope that V4 doesnt turn out to be the New Coke of Twilight 2000 - a reboot that is supposedly going to bring a whole new bunch of customers - but in doing so manages to lose the fan base that kept the game alive for nearly 25 years after GDW died.

[Olefin]

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

That is 100% how it was communicated to me by Marc Miller when it started. That this would be either a continuation or revamp of the V2.2 timeline that would honor what had come before it. Unfortunately that is not what we got.

[Olefin]

FYI for those trying to access the size of the T2K audience out there as it currently stands

Both the Korean and East Africa Sourcebooks have over 500 downloads each since they were released, one in 2017, the other in 2018, and Rooks Gambit isnt far behind

The Pacific Northwest module has also sold very well since its release in February

And the fanzine downloads give an even better idea of the size of the current T2K fan base

As of Feb 20, 2021 the fanzine downloads were as follows - and are probably larger by now

No. 1 Grand Totals: 1890
No. 2 Grand Totals: 1874
No. 3 Grand Totals: 1096

[raketenjagdpanzer]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.

[mpipes]

It was not any sort of inference by me because they most definitely DID imply that they would work from the 2.2 rules. It precisely due to this that some people feel as though they have been duped by FL

I will be more blunt....they actively solicited talent from the forum to work with them with assurances, perhaps a bit vague on particulars, that FL was writing a fully compatible version - rules and history both consistent with the originals save tweaking here and there as well as some revision. Heck, it was in their promotional materials while soliciting funds! Now that may be fraud, depending on what was said and if there are any contracts.

Some of the more vocal critics here were out and out told that FL was considering having them write modules for it, as FL milked their gaming skills and insights to help them draft the Alpha. The project was going to be an update; not a total reboot with a grossly different timeline and wholly different game mechanics. People were point-blanked lied too, and they are not unjustified having hard feelings over it or in being upset.

Again, maybe not illegal but definitely shady and unethical; especially by duping some to spend HOURS of their time trying to aid FL efforts to produce a good game. And when said Alpha draft came out - nothing was as had been represented.

Anyway, as I said, I hope FL does well. I am sure they would have done LOTS better if they had done what they said they would do - and I hope they get continually reminded of that should this venture fail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Welcome to what it's been like to be a fan of D&D since around 1999/2000.

Oh yes, I am well aware of what actual toxic behaviour on a forum looks like. One only has to visit some D&D, Battletech, Vampire and even Traveller forums to see that what has occurred here is people getting hot blooded and other people getting their feelings hurt because someone does not share their vision of what the game should be (and no, I am NOT leaving myself out of those categories)
This forum is actually pretty damned tame compared to some of the forums for those games listed above. I'm aware of arguments on some of those forums that have continued over a course of years. And the "version wars", oh my god! The things hurled back and forth on some of those threads would make any grumpy old curmudgeon feel like a puppy in the company of feral dogs - it's more a bloodfeud than a disagreement!

[Legbreaker]

...the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion.

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

[swaghauler]

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"

I agree with you 100% here. We are supposed to have "Free Speech" in the West. That includes Speech where people may feel hurt or angry because of it. But then again, Speech we all agree with doesn't NEED protecting. I DO NOT believe in "safe spaces." If you don't like what I said, give me your opinion back. I'm a big boy... I can take it. But censoring Speech because "someone may find it offensive" is a cardinal sin in real America.