Forum

Thanks

You're welcome. As for my experience - we first played Twiglet2K when it came out, back in the 80s, and enjoyed several campaigns over the following decade or so, despite the rather cumbersome rules that fought against us, but then moved on to other games, in part because of the complexity and fiddliness of the systems used in various versions. In terms of FL games, which we've been playing since MYZ first came out, I've run or played almost all their games so far with the exception of Alien (a couple of us aren't as interested in military scifi, myself included) and Vaesen (because we haven't had chance to play it yet, thanks to coronavirus and our current campaign still going. I've also been running my own Cthulhu hack of the YZE for the last few months too, so I'm pretty au fait with the core system. My favourites are MYZ, Coriolis, and TOR (though that's not using YZE).

I've run or played almost all their games so far with the exception of Alien (a couple of us aren't as interested in military scifi, myself included)

Alien supports non-military play. Better, really, than it does Military play. Chariot of the Gods, for example, is a merchant ship crew cinematic.
I've run 2 merchant campaigns and had just started a military one at my FLGS when the lockdown hit.
It's worth stating clearly, as well - the core covers 3 kinds of campaigns, only one of which is military. The other two are merchant crews and colonists.

Alien supports non-military play. Better, really, than it does Military play. Chariot of the Gods, for example, is a merchant ship crew cinematic.
I've run 2 merchant campaigns and had just started a military one at my FLGS when the lockdown hit.
It's worth stating clearly, as well - the core covers 3 kinds of campaigns, only one of which is military. The other two are merchant crews and colonists.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I might pick it up after all then - though Coriolis does a great job of scratching my scifi itch.

Alien supports non-military play. Better, really, than it does Military play. Chariot of the Gods, for example, is a merchant ship crew cinematic.
I've run 2 merchant campaigns and had just started a military one at my FLGS when the lockdown hit.
It's worth stating clearly, as well - the core covers 3 kinds of campaigns, only one of which is military. The other two are merchant crews and colonists.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I might pick it up after all then - though Coriolis does a great job of scratching my scifi itch.

Coriolis is an absolutely brilliant setting, but in my opinion it's also the weakest incarnation of the Year Zero Engine. Next time I run Coriolis, I'll be using Alien's rule set. I honestly picked up Alien for that specific reason, as I'm not really interested in the setting, but the rules are very, very well done.

Alien supports non-military play. Better, really, than it does Military play. Chariot of the Gods, for example, is a merchant ship crew cinematic.
I've run 2 merchant campaigns and had just started a military one at my FLGS when the lockdown hit.
It's worth stating clearly, as well - the core covers 3 kinds of campaigns, only one of which is military. The other two are merchant crews and colonists.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I might pick it up after all then - though Coriolis does a great job of scratching my scifi itch.

Let's put it this way: When I ran Hope's Last Day (twice with two different groups) the most "military hardware" they got their hands on was a shotgun and two pistols. Other than that, they were basically facing off against aliens using knifes and welding torches.

It's hardly military play

(That said, they do have a military style module coming out and the Destroyer of Worlds adventure is heavily geared towards military play... but even then it's mostly just "let's get the hell out of here!" type play hehehe)

Also, it's less of a sci-fi game than a horror game, IMHO.

You might be using Coriolis to scratch your sci-fi itch, but I would highly recommend getting Alien for that horror itch

Let's put it this way: When I ran Hope's Last Day (twice with two different groups) the most "military hardware" they got their hands on was a shotgun and two pistols. Other than that, they were basically facing off against aliens using knifes and welding torches.

It's hardly military play

(That said, they do have a military style module coming out and the Destroyer of Worlds adventure is heavily geared towards military play... but even then it's mostly just "let's get the hell out of here!" type play hehehe)

Also, it's less of a sci-fi game than a horror game, IMHO.

You might be using Coriolis to scratch your sci-fi itch, but I would highly recommend getting Alien for that horror itch

No spoilers for HLD, I'm about to start it as a player.

For horror, I have my own YZE Cthulhu game too (though I'm looking forward to the official one). I've picked up Alien anyway, if nothing else I might run some old Traveller stuff using it.

Wow, I see this debate really got off and running while I went away for a bit!

Here's an honest question -- what do you think fuels this ongoing rift between lightweight/RP-centric design and crunchy/systems-centric design? To me (someone who honestly knows by heart a great deal of the technical details of modern warfare), all else being equal, I will always prefer a lighter design that's more story-focused. It gets more people to the table, more often, and it guides play in a way that leads to big character moments and lots of story movement -- not necessarily just combat.

But that's my experience with RPGs, which admittedly sounds like a lot less than some here. I own 1st and 2nd edition (and 2.2) Twilight, and have never been able to run more than a handful of sessions of any of it. I've never heard of anyone who really happily ran a full campaign. Is this just a difference of personalities? Or is it systemic? I've always tended to think of it as systemic. The rules teach players what you want them to do. But Chadwick's Space: 1889 from that same era, for instance, used a lot of similar mechanics, but was much more light-hearted and light-weight and thus always easier to get people involved in.

That is the truth, Sir!

Did you have an opportunity to peruse the discussion on crunchy vs. lightweight systems between first aramis and then Evildrsmith and myself that ensued right after you left? I am assuming you did, but I ask just to make sure where to pick that thread up.

What you say regarding the original Twilight: 2000 editions is certainly true, I feel — while I saw a handful of long-running Twilight campaigns happening within my field of acquaintance in the '80's-'90's, and many said they loved it, I myself felt the mechanic was just a wee bit ... inelegant.
The Mega Traveller system, specifically as it was applied in Traveller: 2300/2300AD, was always my personal favourite among GDW's systems of the time. It struck what I at the time felt was very nearly a perfect balance.

Nowadays though, I not only look for the "right" amount of crunch in the task and conflict resolution systems. I also like to see campaign mechanics that support storytelling, e.g. by tying the character generation "storypath" into the longer story arcs told through the game.
For instance, when characters are subjected to trauma or life-altering experiences, the effects should have relevance to their personal history. What is shocking and traumatic to the civilian youth the group picked up, may be commonplace almost beneath notice for the SAS veteran leading it. Until we come to a point when he is required to abandon a comrade, which he simply is unable to do again ... that sort of thing. Certainly, any good GM and player group can pull that kind of storytelling out of a hat, but I like to see game systems that support even beginners in creating it.
Crunch can come on many different levels.

Wow, I see this debate really got off and running while I went away for a bit!

Here's an honest question -- what do you think fuels this ongoing rift between lightweight/RP-centric design and crunchy/systems-centric design? To me (someone who honestly knows by heart a great deal of the technical details of modern warfare), all else being equal, I will always prefer a lighter design that's more story-focused. It gets more people to the table, more often, and it guides play in a way that leads to big character moments and lots of story movement -- not necessarily just combat.

But that's my experience with RPGs, which admittedly sounds like a lot less than some here. I own 1st and 2nd edition (and 2.2) Twilight, and have never been able to run more than a handful of sessions of any of it. I've never heard of anyone who really happily ran a full campaign. Is this just a difference of personalities? Or is it systemic? I've always tended to think of it as systemic. The rules teach players what you want them to do. But Chadwick's Space: 1889 from that same era, for instance, used a lot of similar mechanics, but was much more light-hearted and light-weight and thus always easier to get people involved in.

There is a rift, to some degree, and I think that there's been a shift relatively recently towards simpler games, which I hope continues. That doesn't mean there aren't fans of much crunchier systems out there - as Pathfinder 2 shows - and some people demand more crunch in their games, but I think as a trend, it's going the other direction. When you look at demographics too, that can be instructive - to get new people into the hobby, simpler systems are obviously preferable - anything that allows easiness of entry will encourage more people to give roleplaying a try. So, new players tend to prefer simpler systems. Some of those people will want to stretch out to more complex systems as they get older, but at certain points as they age, the opposite is true; commitments to work and family often cut down time to spend either gaming or preparing a game (for the GM), so simpler games are again key. If you only have 3 hours to game once a fortnight, a game in which combat takes a long time is going to get boring very quickly, as you don't see much progression in the story, whereas one in which combat takes a matter of minutes at most allows much more progression in storyline.