Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ddougan" data-source="post: 1494705" data-attributes="member: 11480">I haven't seen these rules - do you have a link to them please?  I agree on some points here - the GDW house system does its job brilliantly, and I really dislike the automatic fire rules in D20 Modern and Spycraft. TW2K end edition (and even better in 2.2 - which gave highly trained characters a slightly better chance than the totally random D6 from v2.0) autofire rules where very nice.However, I didn't like the way the task system handled extremely hard tasks (ie x1/2 and x1/4), because it basically meant that a character needed 4 full skill points above another in order to have a better chance at completing an impossible task. When you look at something like an unexperienced character (skill level=0) and a fairly experienced character (skill level=3), I'd expect a bit of a better difference in the odds.So I'd like to see a linear DC approach that D20 uses in my perfect v2.2 rewrite <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I actually prefered the wound system used in 2300 AD - where each and every single hit that penetrated had the chance to kill you. You rolled for potential severity (modified by hit location), and then rolled for actual severity (based on damage).Having said that, I do use a VP-per-location house rule in Spycraft. Armour only provides Damage Reduction (no modifier to Defence) on the locations is protects.I really preferred the 2.2 initiative rule over v2.0 - it seemed to have an awful lot more management.The V2.2 initiative rules where similar to those in 2300AD as well.This I don't agree with <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's nothing inherently wrong with the D20 game system that stops it doing Twilight 2000 properly.I agree with you that it would NOT be D20 Modern (or indeed Spycraft) rules out-of-the-box. But a variant D20 game system would handle Twilight 2000 very well.I too would *prefer* to see an improved v2.2 ruleset over D20, but I'd take a D20 based version if it was done well (which I'm afraid, I already dislike due to the decision to base the rules on 3 sets of books, and I don't agree with all the decisions they took in doing T20).</blockquote>

Verification