Forum

It is true that not many games written in the 80's and early 90's remain in production with the same execution of mechanics they had back then. And indeed, some systems — like Millennium's End, Phoenix Command, and others — that tried to shoot for extremely crunchy, simulationistic systems, have since then gone the way of the dodo; simply due to being much too complicated to be practical at the table.

But as I just posted on another thread: like all other technology, mechanics of RPG's have evolved over the past three or four decades. What could be considered okay in 1990 would in most cases be considered subpar today. That goes for everything from mechanics to pure production values.
The question currently at hand is however, is the current trend towards lightweight, crunch-free systems truly universal, or is there a fair bunch of people who look for TTRPG systems that can scratch a similar level of crunch-itch as the old T2k editions did back in the day — only with more modern solutions for the mechanics?

For my own part, I subscribe to the latter — and I'd be inclined to say that this is borne out by that there are still many fairly crunchy systems around, have loyal fan bases, run successful Kickstarters, and get played a fair bit, to all appearances. Call of Cthulhu, Harnmaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, Western, Traveller5, Shadowrun ... just to name a handful. New ones also crop up ... some of the new euro games are fairly crunchy, too.


My point is that detail, resolution, crunch ... do not necessarily go hand-in-hand with complicated and cumbersome resolution mechanics. If you accept that not all weapons will have identical stats, and that you need to jot down the specific stats of (or hold the specific cards for) each weapon you have anyway, a whole lot of complexity can be hidden away behind each number.


To reiterate something else that I wrote somewhere a while ago — in the end, it's all about flavour and atmosphere.
Providing these is to my mind the whole point of even having a game system in the first place.

In the real world, it makes a very real difference if I try to hit someone at 700m with an M4 or an M16A2. And so, I need the game mechanics to show me that difference; to make it matter if I have one or the other.

To me, Twilight:2000 is, in the end, a mainly military setting, and small-unit tactics should occasionally be part of it. Not all the time, perhaps not even very often, but definitely now and then.
And when it does — as the strengths and limitations of whatever weapons I have available to me will inform my tactical choices in the real world, I want the weapon properties in the game to inform my tactical choices there. With mostly recognisably similar results, N.B.!

Because it it doesn't matter — why have any stats at all? Why bother with having the game mechanics there in the first place?
Why not just sit around and improv group-story tell freely, and dispense with all the faffing around with character generation and dice-rolling altogether, if they don't help us distinguish which choices matter and which don't?


Ultimately, I feel that making a T2k game with a crunchiness level akin to Alien — where weapons ranges are abstract narrative zones and ammo lasts forever until you fail a dice roll — would be a mistake of epic proportions. Fortunately however, we already know that isn't the direction this development is headed; rather the opposite.

For my own part, I subscribe to the latter — and I'd be inclined to say that this is borne out by that there are still many fairly crunchy systems around, have loyal fan bases, run successful Kickstarters, and get played a fair bit, to all appearances. Call of Cthulhu, Harnmaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, Western, Traveller5, Shadowrun ... just to name a handful. New ones also crop up ... some of the new euro games are fairly crunchy, too.

I haven't played the majority of games you've listed in quite a few years. I returned to gaming in 2012, Traveller was my go to and I was happy with the Mongoose versions. The number of people playing T5 is tiny because the rules are an utter clusterf*ck. Detail gone haywire. No consistency or editorial control. Unfinished. Unreadable and most definitely unplayable. The discontent amongst the hard core grognards was palpable.

Vader, you missed a category or two: Shotguns, and Machineguns.

Plus the LAW, TOW, and RPG.

Vader, you missed a category or two: Shotguns, and Machineguns.

Plus the LAW, TOW, and RPG.

Not really ... if you simplify it down to that level, then Shotguns are Rifles, and Machine Guns are ... also Rifles, w/full auto; same as Assault Rifles.

And I didn't mention them as they aren't usually categorised as "small arms" (as in the thread's title), but all HEAT weapons — recoilless rifles, ATGM's, whatnot — can probably be simplified into one single collective umbrella weapon of their own.

If not being strong on weapon detail is a desirable end unto its own, then that ought to sound about right.

But I can't help but wonder ... is that really what the majority of consumers attracted to a Twilight:2000 game are looking for?

Now you're just being oppositional, Vader.

Shotguns are NOT rifles, and do not have the same effects on the body. Nor anywhere near the same effective range And on either scaling that's likely, they're different enough to not be a base damage equal to that of a rifle, but instead better chance of multiple hits equal to a pistol.

Machine guns typically have higher damages because they usually use larger rounds than battle rifles.

As for lower detail being what people wanted? If they were familiar with YZE and any prior edition of T2k, less weapon detail should be a self-evident conclusion.

And given the ranges of the stats in every YZE game, there's not a wide range to differentiate within. Yes, it's going to be more gear focused than other YZE games... but it's still the YZE engine, and without rescaling drastically, there's not much room for damage variation, and effective range variation is also limited.

Also note: this is also the most limited YZE game for score ranges, too... only 4 allowed scores, rather than the minimum 5 in all the others (1-5) - with a 4 point skill range instead of the 5 point of all the others.

So... there really isn't room to have loads of details. That said, reduction to absurdity, such as ignoring that the average mounted MG does considerably more damage than the average battle rifle, is not a healthy debating tactic.

Now you're just being oppositional, Vader.

I can understand you for thinking so, but that is actually not the case.

Kind of wish it were, though...

Unfortunately however, I’ve actually seen game systems out there that treat shotguns simply as “rifles with more damage and better hit probability”. Apparently, this is by some considered a valid simplification. Even the otherwise very crunchy Western RPG does exactly that.
I think it's utter madness — but then again, I also think there are several significant differences between a 350 and 621mm barrel Steyr AUG that really ought to be reflected in any sensible game's stats, so who am I to say?

And the by far most common machine guns in the field — GPMG’s like MG3, M249, MAG, M60, etc — fire the exact same 5.56 and 7.62mm cartridges as do assault rifles like G3 and FNC.
If — if — it's deemed reasonable to simplify e.g. M4's, M16's, and G3's into one single set of range, damage, initiative, whatever stats, then I have problems seeing how the difference between an M249 and an M16 suddenly becomes significant.

The 12.7mm, 14.5mm and similar, often vehicle mounted HMG’s you mention — again, referring to the thread's title — aren't really "small arms" either, so in context they become an aberration. At this abstraction level, they'd need to be placed into a separate set of statistics all their own, just like the HEAT weapons.


Regarding how much detail the system does or does not allow, I must defer to the Alpha.
We’ve only seen glimpses of a pre-Alpha draft of the system so far; the actual Alpha — not to mention the Beta, never mind the final system — might yet differ considerably, in significant details.
After all; at this stage in the design process — assuming Alpha means what I'm used to it meaning — it should still be possible to tweak the system's "resolution matrix" one or several notches.


I do not, nor can I see any obvious reason to, take it as a foregone conclusion that a significant proportion — let alone a majority — of T2k 4e customers are previous YZE players, or that their expectations of its detail level are in any way formed by previous exposure to the YZE.

What we do know is that a lot of people backed the Kickstarter. Did they do so because it said "Twilight: 2000"? Or because it said "Fria Ligan"? Or perhaps because of the stunning artwork? Or ... because of any of a multitude of possible reasons? There is no way to know; we can only guess. But as the saying goes, "assumption is the mother of all etceteras"...

But for one possible concrete set of existing data, one might for instance speculate on how many copies have been sold of the previous T2k editions, all told — many buyers of which probably would be interested in a new, modern edition — vs. how many copies have been sold of all YZE games combined ... and how many of those buyers even are interested in the T2k setting in the first place.
Again, I do not know, but I have a sneaking suspicion the former alone may turn out to vastly overshadow the latter.

No; given their history, I see no danger whatsoever that Fria Ligan even could make T2k "too" detailed, even if they actively tried to. My fear is rather that a significant amount of the game's potential customers will end up gravely disappointed if the detail level is too low.