v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Targan]

First time poster, so be gentle . . .

Are you one of the creators of the new edition

[Black Vulmea]

Are you one of the creators of the new edition

I backed the Kickstarter - does that count

No, I've never tried my hand at designing a game, beyond house ruling other people's games.

[pmulcahy11b]

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

[Rockwolf66]

You know, I've only been marginally keeping up with with the v4 developments, until tonight when I read the entire thread in one go.

And v4 just seems screwy. Like if I wrote new T2K rules when I'd been off my antipsychotics for a couple of weeks. OK, new ideas are good, and I'm heavily shackled to 2,2. but v4 just seems strange --like it's not T2K, but rather a post-apoc game that should have a different name and have no ties to "real" T2K. At best, mine v4 for ideas and then throw out the rest.

And having v4 basically take place in Sweden and northeastern Europe That's a module, not a T2K game. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but from what I've read here, the writers of v4 seem to have not paid any attention to previous T2K works -- the sort of short-shortsightedness that led (That Movie That Should Not Be Called) Starship Troopers. Use the name to draw the fans in, then make it anything you want -- you'll already have the money, so what if the fans feel suckered

That's the feel I get here. Someone came up with a set of crazy rules and a game region that should be a module, then slapped Twilight 2000 on it to draw us in.

That's my take.

That sounds about right. The behavior of FL makes it worse. Some of us who had seen the pre-Alpha stuff complained but were ignored. I've been playing TW2K for 20 years and I want new stuff. Alas what i have seen is not TW2K.

As far as the foraging rules go I wish I could drop the FL people out in the woods and let them find out how easy it is to eat well in the woods. Mind you I am all of three generations away from Subsistence poachers.

[TyCaine]

I've been on this forum a while, I just don't post a lot, and I've been a fan of Twilight 2000 for a long, long time. Wow, actually... Longer than I thought... LOL

Anyway... Am I happy there's a new version Definitely... But not so much for the version itself I hate to say, but more for the renewal of interest in the concept. More for the fact that with interest comes the possibility of new sourcebooks that could be revamped and refactored and slipped into my own version of the game. More for the fact that additional fluff could add color to my own T2K universe, or new rules could be retconned into my version.

My version, by the way, the game I play, is v2.2 with a whole bunch of mods and rules and such all carefully crafted and added into the game to make things...well...mine... mine and my players...

The Year Zero engine just feels....lack luster to me... I'm not sure how else to explain it, and although I happily grabbed the alpha and dug through it, I'm just not....happy with it. Will there be a market for it I'm sure. I guess I'm either too set in my ways, or too much of an old grognard to appreciate it, either way, it is what it is.

I'm sure there will be people who will like it, and for that I'm glad there's an audience... And I'll admit I'm looking forward to new material, new ideas, new possibilities...but I'm not going to be moving to the new version any time soon... Thankfully most of my players are very much of the same opinion so will more than likely be happy to stay as is for a while, though I do have one who's less long in the tooth and is already a player of at least one YZ game but I believe understands us old folks...

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and thanks for letting me air them!
I'll go back to my semi-lurking for now...

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

That's my take.

You're right on the money with all that.

[Legbreaker]

And all I can hope is there's enough like minded individuals (at least in part if not in full) around so that there will remain a corner of (for instance) this forum that I can still return to share ideas, rules and such.

My thoughts are FL's game will be regarded much like T2013 - a variant and not core. It may be discussed from time to time, but certainly won't be a significant part of the conversation.

Time may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

[Tegyrius]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a familiar (but not identical) post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline. "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was," indeed.

- C.

[wolffhound79]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take If so Why not just say that to everyone I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1

[TyCaine]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity. Different timeline, different historical backdrop, different era - another path leading to a post-WWIII setting. 4e is very much being billed as a new edition of the classic Cold War timeline.

I somewhat agree, but I feel Leg had the right thought that v4 will be, essentially, a variant...

I essentially agree with Paul as well that I for one will very much be looking to 'mine' v4 for my own game of v2.2

Like I said I'm happy at the prospect of new interest and new support, I just don't see it being of 'use' to me except as potential to be mined for my own game.

~Ty

[Tegyrius]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take

That shouldn't be an issue if they do, in fact, have a licensing contract for the property from Marc Miller/Far Future Enterprises. Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, I believe they do have a legitimate license. Otherwise they'd be in trouble just for attempting to profit from the Twilight: 2000 trademark.

- C.

[TyCaine]

I was thinking about this in the last couple days. What if there is some kind of copy right issue For instance whoever wrote the original time lines for v1 and v2 would need to be paid for or possible sue for likeness rights. Could FL be avoiding having to pay some of the original game designers by changing just enough of the game and saying its a whole new take If so Why not just say that to everyone I get they are a European company and they are obviously opening up the game to Swedish fans as I once read there was a huge following of twilight fans in sweden, but it kinds of just pissing on everyone else. I believe they could have written in sweden joining the war to support finland and norway very easily. I dont know just my two cents.

Free the oli 1

Huh.... That's an interesting take, I hadn't thought about it that way...

Of course, doesn't change my view of the YZ engine, but makes sense from the background perspective.

~Ty

[Legbreaker]

While not disagreeing with you, Leg, I will note that 2013 was never intended to be "core" in the sense of revising the Cold War/2000 timeline or extending its continuity.

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

[Tegyrius]

That I believe was a good move on your part. I only wonder if it wouldn't have been better to push it back another decade though to give more room to mould the world to fit the intended outcome.

In retrospect, perhaps. 1e was published in 1984, so it had a 12-year offset between publication and the beginning of the war, with the start of play being 16 years in the future. We had our first major setting design meeting in June 2006; at the time, I believe (memory hazy, it's been a while) we were targeting a 2008 release. Keeping the original timeline, we might have been better served by making it Twilight: 2025 or 2030.

The challenge in any non-Cold War timeline, of course, is generating a plausible WWIII with widespread nuclear devastation but without the Cold War's preconditions for such an occurrence. An immediate post-WWIII setting is Twilight: 2000's defining trait, which sets it well apart from almost every other post-apoc RPG on the market.

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

Based on 2013's reception, I find it pretty clear that the core of the fan base will violently reject any setting that doesn't let them play in the aftermath of the Cold War in which they grew up and/or served. I think you have to keep that year if you're calling it Twilight: 2000. If you modernize the setting, you have to call it a spiritual successor rather than a new edition. That leaves a future 5e with an intensively-researched Cold War setting (or one vague enough that there aren't details over which the piranhas can swarm) coupled to modernized rules.

- C.

[TyCaine]

I actually have two 'flavors' of T2K running at the moment.

One is the more standard timeline (nipped and tucked here and there, but essentially v2.2 with some more classic flavor).

The other is actually Twilight 2019, an update so that things are a little more modern (at a request from a couple of my younger players) where there's little details like having smart phones and tablets (no network for the most part, just useful for whatever is on the device) as well as a few other less obvious details, different vehicles (like the JLTV) and so on.

My group are happy with either, and I've found the 2019 setting seems to fit better for M2K.

My point being, as obtuse as it might have been, is that a v5 to me could be either an update or a classic interpretation, I wouldn't mind either, as long as the implementation of it 'spoke' to me.

For those more hard line enthusiasts though I think a v5 with a thoroughly investigated and cogitated classic Cold War timeline would be best, with, perhaps, a modern update being something more of a 'setting' supplement later...

~Ty