Design Discussion: Barriers to New Player Entry for T2k

[Tegyrius]

During the last six months of 4th Edition discussion, one of the points that has arisen occasionally is its potential (or lack thereof) to entice new players to the game line. This is one of my hopes for it because we are not a numerous fandom, nor are we growing any younger. I believe the fan base needs new blood and new thoughts for healthy discussion, ease of finding play groups, and the financial viability of future products.

Over the years, I've made several attempts to start T2k campaigns with various groups, using multiple editions. There has generally been low interest among parties who weren't already fans of the game, even from players who generally have high interest in trying new systems and settings.

By far, the greatest common factors driving disinterest among potential players is the game's military focus. Although civilian characters are technically possible, all published editions assume military protagonists. For players who lack military experience or subject matter expertise, this is often a turn-off. Some players are disinterested in playing a military-centric game due to cultural factors. Others express anxiety over being penalized for playing "incorrectly," whether with tactics or PC characterization.

A corollary to this is that most of my gaming friendships emerged from World of Darkness fandom, and thus my gaming circle is more diverse than the audience here. Several female gamers, gamers of color, and LGBTQ+ gamers have opined that T2k is not interesting because the setting lacks a place for PCs whose identities and experiences mirror their own (recall that during the era in which T2k takes place, LGBTQ+ folk were barred from U.S. military service).

(In T2k's defense for the latter issue, it has always featured female NPCs in leadership positions, including ground combat roles, and has never included mechanical penalties for female PCs. There's an interesting point here regarding outside perception vs. published canon.)

I'm curious as to what barriers other referees have encountered when attempting to recruit new groups. I'm also interested in poking at what tools can be created - whether official 4e products, changes intrinsic to a hypothetical 5e, or fan creations for previous editions - to help overcome these barriers and bring more players to the game.

- C.

[Olefin]

There have always been players of color and the openness to players of color and females - all you have to do is look at the original T2K box and first module. The Krakow module has a black US soldier and a female US soldier on the cover after all.

And considering the games time period - both when it was written and the time period it covers- the whole issue of transgender would not have been a consideration. Thats like saying where are the transgender soldiers in a WW2 recreation.

If anything T2k is a game that has always welcomed female players and characters. I would actually say it was ground breaking in that consideration as opposed to games like D&D that had limits for female characters that never appeared in any edition of T2K.

[Rainbow Six]

I can't really comment on V1 (my experience of actually playing with V1 rules is fairly limited and my experience of character creation brings back memories of calculators and excel spreadsheets) but when it comes to V2, I've always found one of the challenges to be the character creation system.In my experience it's heavily biased against creating civilian characters who posses a skillset that's useful in game terms, particularly if you have someone in your group who wants to play an eighteen year old Polish )or American in a CONUS campaign) refugee - using rules as written, they'd start with virtually no skills (this is one reason why I much prefer the 2013 mechanics - in my experience you can create a far more rounded character using Reflex rules). So the system pushes you towards playing a military character (one who changes branch every term if you really want to maximise your skills). The best way to get round that I've seen to get round that and level the playing field is a Points Buy system that lets people play the sort of character that they want to play without having to feel like they're running a suboptimal character.

As those who have gamed with me before are probably well aware I also find the military chain of command that exists in many T2K games to be something that can cause issues. I've seen games where people playing officers have thought that gives them carte blanche to tell other players what to do (to be fair, I've also seen games where it's been done very well - looking at you Fahd). I tried to circumvent that in one game by implementing a 'no officer PC's' policy to encourage a more inclusive structure. In another game the PC's started as a Free Company (essentially mercs for hire). While that game had a rank structure it was relatively fluid / collegial.

[Olefin]

also you have to keep in mind there are civilian characters who have no idea about the military and then those brought up in families with military veterans

in real life on the TDM I had a few years of ROTC training (before I got hurt playing football) but that was about it for the current generation - however the previous two generations had all served in combat and as a result we had been taught how to shoot, clean and take care of weapons. All the men and some of the women were hunters and knew things like how to move quietly thru the woods and do ambushes. We were very familiar with weapons like the 9mm and 45 caliber pistols the military carried as well as M1 Garands and Thompson SMG's and sniper rifles - because we grew up around them and had been taught to use them. Same with things like dynamite and making explosives.

Compare that to a civilian who grew up in a city, never fired a gun before the TDM and didnt have anyone who ever served in the military in their family.

[Raellus]

As those who have gamed with me before are probably well aware I also find the military chain of command that exists in many T2K games to be something that can cause issues. I've seen games where people playing officers have thought that gives them carte blanche to tell other players what to do (to be fair, I've also seen games where it's been done very well - looking at you Fahd). I tried to circumvent that in one game by implementing a 'no officer PC's' policy to encourage a more inclusive structure. In another game the PC's started as a Free Company (essentially mercs for hire). While that game had a rank structure it was relatively fluid / collegial.

+1

I've seen the concept of rank cause problems in T2k campaigns before too. The whole idea of a pecking order or hierarchy in a game can be a turn-off to a lot of people. And if someone wants to play a civilian, it's usually with the understanding that they will be at the very bottom of the rank totem pole. I can't imagine it would be very fun being expected to follow orders from a PFC.

IIRC, v2.2 rules give civilian PCs very few skills, compared to military PCs. Even conscripts get a lot fewer skills. If a player doesn't want his/her PC to be useless to the party, this might dissuade them from playing a civilian. I've found that v2.2 kind of encourages players to gravitate towards the special forces templates. Hence parties of 5th ID survivors that contain a Green Beret, a couple of Rangers, a USMC Scout-Sniper or two, and at least one Navy SEAL.

I've seen rank cut both ways too. I've seen instances where the player with the highest IG rank becomes a martinet and starts bossing other players around. This hardly ever ends well. I've also seen instances where low-ranking players rarely show any initiative. Instead, they wait for someone playing a higher ranking PC to give them orders. That doesn't lend itself very well to collaborative play either. And lastly, I've seen instances where decision-making becomes a very painful exercise because players are too unwilling to pull rank. Too little hierarchy can cause problems too. Rank, IMHO, is a double-edged sword.

As for sexuality/sexual identity, I've played in probably 10 different PbP or PBeM campaigns over the last 15 years or so and I only ever encountered one gay PC (and her player had to tell me she was gay years after the fact). I have no idea how much of this is down to player preference, and how much it has to with US military prohibitions against LGBTQ service people in the 1980s and '90s. T2k seems a little on the macho side of the spectrum, so I can see how that perception might scare some interested people off.

-

[unipus]

The designer's notes in the addendum of v1 are very clear about that being one of the original design problems: they wanted to do a military game but needed a way to get around the problem of pulling rank. The solution was the apocalypse and the collapse at Kalisz. Arguably, this situation really only sorta solves the problem. It's playable, but really you're still going to run into many situations where rank matters. And in many cases that's still a problem when you're trying to run an RPG.

[Tegyrius]

Unfortunately, I think they invalidated that design decision by making rank a mechanical function of character generation. There is an offset in 1e in that characters with high stats are ironically less likely to have high rank. In 2e, there's no down side: with promotion granting extra skills and rank determining starting funds, higher-ranking characters begin play at a higher level of capability.

- C.

[Olefin]

Thats one reason I have always said that GMs need to make sure that things are realistic as to what players can be - ie the chances that everyone is some kind of Special Forces is not based on the reality of the military. I have played officers and enlisted men and like both sides. And rank in the Kalisz scenario really doesnt mean as much when you are cut off and alone. I can see it being much more of an issue in campaigns where the military is still organized - ie places like Kenya or Iran or in the UK where the British govt is still in control - then its more a military simulation versus a fight for survival.

In my original campaign I was a captain but all I was in command of was my tank. The group made decisions as a group and my rank only came into play in the game a couple of times when we ran into other organized US units - at least until we got back into Germany.

[Targan]

I find myself slightly confused as to why people playing a military-based game would be annoyed at the constraints of a rank-based hierarchical structure. If you don't like that social environment, why are you playing that game It's like playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms setting and saying dragons and magic annoy you. Like... wut Military rank structures aren't a "barrier to entry" to playing T2K. They're a function of the setting.

[unipus]

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

[Tegyrius]

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k

- C.

[kato13]

Military rank structures aren't a "barrier to entry" to playing T2K. They're a function of the setting.

I kinda agree if you play RAW. But this thread has made me think, "Has anyone ever played a totally civilian party"

I think setting might be the wrong term, maybe suggested game-play/rules (particularly v1) The world "setting" could allow you to theoretically play any person in the world who is still alive. You don't have published materials, but that is what creative people are for.

I was going to work on a supplemental wiki for the DC Groups stuff, where we (the forum collectively) could for lack of a better term "Make up" stuff for every US and Canadian counties and other countries districts. Truth be told when I had the idea it was for Morrow Project but a duplication of work is much easier than starting from scratch. I always thought fleshing out the areas around where board members live would have been fun.

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k

- C.

I think going with what I wrote above, you have a group consisting of all civilians in a town not directly effected by war, but needing to fight off marauders, travel far for medicine or spare parts, try to recover some lost treasure. Sounds pretty T2k to me, but you would need creativity or a support network to assist in filling the "gaps" in the rules.

[Olefin]

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

The game is also a military simulation - its not all about adventure and survival - thats why you have the RDF, Kenya, and Korean Sourcebooks - all of which are places where there are functioning chains of commands. And the Last Submarine Trilogy - which a lot of players love - is all about having to do the adventure within a chain of command once you have the submarine - then the players are playing a pure military mission - same with most of King's Ransom - until you get to go for the goodies

And D&D also has adventures where you arent just going around raiding dungeons and exploring - i.e. you get sent on a mission either because you pissed off the wrong person or to pay off a debt or any of a number of reasons where you arent the one running the show - its the King, Prince, Mage, etc.. who sent you off to complete the mission - or in this case quest

[Olefin]

There's a more fundamental question which I think flows from the rank issue: must character creation and game play be military-centric for the game to be T2k

- C.

answer - mainly yes - its a game about the military - its not a game primarily set up for civilian characters - which is not to say you cant be a civilian who used to be military and thus still have the skill sets you used to have - think about the fun guys in Grenada the characters run into who used to US military who still have their skills - just a little bit too old to still be running around like they used to - still not the people I would want to run into in a dark alley

[3catcircus]

Well that's pretty clear: that dragon doesn't have formal authority to tell you what to do. And while some people might be into it, I doubt most tables of peers are all that interested in doing whatever one person says, all the time.

It gets worse, potentially: say you escape that "on your own" situation from Kalisz and fall back to Germany and... immediately run into functioning units again, with NPCs that outrank you and put you back to doing their bidding That's also not a fantastic setup for adventure, for the most part. Or at least not the kind of free-wheeling adventure that most RPGs including T2K have generally promised.

When the dragon can burn your PC to a crisp or swallow whiole, that's all the formal authority it needs...

The original Kalisz scenario using 5th ID requires a GM that enforces a party that is "realistic" in makeup - armor, infantry, field artillery, or cavalry units, and division or battalion support (engineers, cooks, MPs, Intel, etc.) No green berets, no seals, etc. If there are rangers, they're tabbed not scrolled and they are part of one of the 5ID units. Civilians could be locals. Govt agents could be CIA, DIA, locals, etc. Other nationalities would be German, British, etc. or Pact forces deserters. There *might* be 2MarDiv liaisons, but they'd likely be part of German 3rd Army or US IX Corps. All of the noncombatant support soldiers are gonna be in, FREX, the HHC of the applicablee battalion or division, not in one of the actual rifle companies...

It also requires work on the part of the GM to properly outfit the party. Which requires the GM to look at an ORBAT and TOE info.

The challenge is finding players who are willing to work within the bound of the rules and campaign. It is akin to a D&D game where one of the players wants to pick a class or race that isn't part of the campaign or wants a backstory that doesn't fit.

As to falling back to organized units - that becomes the goal rather than the adventure. In the core v1 campaign, you can spend months real-time adventuring in the areas surrounding Kalisz without the GM ever advancing the campaign into getting close to seeing another organized NATO unit.