New Edition of Twilight 2000 Interview

[Ewan]

A very interesting interview
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/627759700?tt_medium=mobile_web_share&tt_content=vod

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Definitely "interesting". I think some people will find it quite illuminating.
I am still very much curious (and interested) in the material that Free League will create for the game world but for my tastes, their Year Zero rules are not for me.

[sellanraa]

Yeah, it sounds like they've got some ideas I can agree with, so I remain excited. It's just the difficult challenge of 'sticking the landing' with a good execution of a rule set.

[CDAT]

I there an overview of what was covered for those who do not have an hour+ to spend listening?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I haven't seen anything to that effect but the basics are things that we already know: -
Free League is not really changing the world background that much from what we've seen in 2nd/2.2
it will use a variant of the Year Zero rules
Sweden will be a campaign starting region like Poland was in the earlier editions (like their Tales from the Loop RPG there will be two possible starting locations, in this case, Poland and Sweden)
the artwork will be pretty damned good

What I found interesting was that some of the live audience for the Twitch stream were happy to see that playing civilians would be an option - something that has been in the game since at least 2nd Edition. So it seems to me that some of the audience is actually quite ignorant of the earlier editions which may possibly be an indicator that Free League is attracting a new group of people to the game?

The other things of interest to me were how much the Year Zero rules are slanted towards fast play and also the systems reliance on gimmick dice. They're modifying aspects of the Year Zero system to account for T2k's survival theme and to give some differentiation between items of gear (e.g. small arms), but it is still intrinsically a Year Zero rules set.
While many aspects of the gimmick dice probably won't make it into their version of T2k, they still exist as a possibility. The guy that was interviewed said that the rules are not set just yet as they are only now going into play-testing. Therefore there is still the possibility that changes will be made.

This also means that the skill system we're used to from earlier editions is going to be much reduced and it seems that they won't even be called skills but "talents" and while these talents will be combined with Year Zero's much smaller Attribute list to see if you pass a skill test (like we see in the 2.2 d20 system), multiple types of die will be needed depending on how "talented" the PC is (subject to the play-test). At the moment they are using a two-dice system, it seems the core die is a d6 while the second die reflects how "talented" the PC is.
Low talents start with a d6 but as your PC increases ranks in that talent, the second die becomes a d8, then a d10, then a d12.

While I can see that that sort of mechanic can be really useful for fast paced or cinematic games, it's exactly the opposite of how I view most of a T2k game. It seems to me that the Year Zero system suits lots of dice rolling where you don't have to think too much about the mechanics behind the system or even how rules mechanics can shape/inform the game world. While that can certainly be an asset for some game genres, I'm not convinced it's a good fit for any sort of gritty survival game. It appears to suit their Mutant Year Zero game but that is as much fantasy as the Fallout computer games so definitely not what I would class as gritty or survival themed.

[Legbreaker]

Free League is not really changing the world background that much from what we've seen in 2nd/2.2

Tomas has offered to share the current draft for the overall backstory (alternate 1990s history)? It's a work in progress however, so I'd need to ask you not to share it with others or discuss its contents openly (yet - later, we'll of course welcome public feedback on it).
So obviously once I see it I can't say TOO much, but should be able to give general comments I think - enough to confirm or otherwise how closely it sticks to the earlier versions.
The feedback opportunity should be welcomed by many I believe - sounds like the community will have some influence over the final product.

I'm with you on the intended rule set, and personally don't intend to use it unless it's dramatically better than we fear it will be. Of course there's nothing to stop anyone using the 4th ed setting with 1st, 2nd or even T:2013 rules! For that matter, why not go all the way and use Phoenix Command? :D

[StainlessSteelCynic]

PHOENIX COMMAND! :eek: :spanka:

Phoenix Command is directly responsible for me buying Twilight: 2000.
And that's the only good thing I can say about it (aside from the artwork being quite good). Far too complicated for my tastes.
When I finally got into RPGs, being in the Army Reserve at the time, I wanted a military themed RPG and found Phoenix Command. It convinced me that there was an easier way to do things so I went searching for a better rules system and found T2k 2nd Ed.

[Legbreaker]

I love that level of crunch. Shame hardly anyone else does. :(

[Vespers War]

The other things of interest to me were how much the Year Zero rules are slanted towards fast play and also the systems reliance on gimmick dice. They're modifying aspects of the Year Zero system to account for T2k's survival theme and to give some differentiation between items of gear (e.g. small arms), but it is still intrinsically a Year Zero rules set.
While many aspects of the gimmick dice probably won't make it into their version of T2k, they still exist as a possibility. The guy that was interviewed said that the rules are not set just yet as they are only now going into play-testing. Therefore there is still the possibility that changes will be made.

Gimmick dice aren't really a requirement for most (all?) of the Y0 system games as long as you have three different colors of D6s. In past games, you get dice for stats, skills, and gear. There are situations where a player can choose to re-roll dice, but a re-roll of 1 on stat dice means an injury and on gear dice means something goes wrong with the gear (skill dice have no re-roll flaw, which makes them valuable). All you really need is to be able to tell your three types of dice apart. The gimmick dice make it easier, but they're not necessary.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Some clarification is in order - to me, different coloured dice in that situation are just as much gimmick dice as are any of the speciality/unique dice created for a specific game.

[CDAT]

I love that level of crunch. Shame hardly anyone else does. :(

I like the crunch when it adds to the game, for example skills being more specific like EOD being able to defuse unknown explosive devices, but Combat Engineers only being able to deal with with items that they use, or a Tanker being able to drive their tank (and maybe the generation before), but not an mobile artillery or infantry carrier unit with out extra training. Now on the other hand it can be taken to far, for example (I have never played it but heard it is the super crunch game of all) Harpoon where doing the math tracking each bullet fired out of a CIWS can take several hours, and game time for this is 3 seconds.

[Legbreaker]

Phoenix Command, and the games that have come from the system (Aliens, Lawnmower Man, Terminator, Dracula) does take a little time initially, but once the players and GM get a handle on it, and have a copy of the tables in front of them, it really doesn't take very long at all. Yes, there's a couple of rolls required for each shot or burst (to hit, glancing, and how hard was the hit, then how well does the target handle it), but it's really not that much slower than most other systems.
Again, PROVIDED the players have read and understood the rules and have the tables immediately at hand.

The delays mostly come from lack of preparation and only having one copy of the relevant tables. ALWAYS a good idea to photocopy the tables and distribute them before the game session.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Phoenix Command, and the games that have come from the system (Aliens, Lawnmower Man, Terminator, Dracula) does take a little time initially, but once the players and GM get a handle on it, and have a copy of the tables in front of them, it really doesn't take very long at all. Yes, there's a couple of rolls required for each shot or burst (to hit, glancing, and how hard was the hit, then how well does the target handle it), but it's really not that much slower than most other systems.
Again, PROVIDED the players have read and understood the rules and have the tables immediately at hand.

The delays mostly come from lack of preparation and only having one copy of the relevant tables. ALWAYS a good idea to photocopy the tables and distribute them before the game session.

Are you implying that I didn't properly read the Phoenix Command rules? :mad:





You're right. :)
The system was too dense for my tastes. I wanted a system that I could adjudicate without having to constantly reference the rules. None of the people I gamed with at the time wanted the complexity of the Leading Edge Games system, to the point where they ran the games published by LEG with other rules systems.

OH I see what's going on here. :eek:
Leading Edge Games
LEG
Legbreaker
Leg
Hmm, seems to be a vested interest here! :boxen:
:p :D

[Legbreaker]

Are you implying that I didn't properly read the Phoenix Command rules? :mad:

Oh not at all! I'm sure you read them and then read them another dozen times.
What I'm saying is your small mind was and still is, simply incapable of understanding them. :D

I quite like the system, although it's been near impossible to find others willing to give it a go. It's (in my opinion) got an undeserved reputation as being very heavy going with a steep learning curve, but that's more from GMs rushing in without first fully understanding it themselves and thinking a few minutes play time with it should make everything clear. When in your first session you only manage a few seconds of combat in total, many people understandably are reluctant to give it another go.

Another thing I've found that for some reason many players can't wrap their heads around is that percentiles run from 00 to 99 rather than the more common 01-100 range. It's a small thing, but I've noticed whenever I have been able to scrape up players, it seems like a significant hurdle for most people. :confused:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Oh not at all! I'm sure you read them and then read them another dozen times.
What I'm saying is your small mind was and still is, simply incapable of understanding them. :D
OI! I resemble that remark!
You scruffy looking nerf-herder! That's right, I called you scruffy looking!
:D

Another thing I've found that for some reason many players can't wrap their heads around is that percentiles run from 00 to 99 rather than the more common 01-100 range. It's a small thing, but I've noticed whenever I have been able to scrape up players, it seems like a significant hurdle for most people. :confused:
That's really interesting, there's no difference between the two sets of ranges in terms of number of results. My maths is pretty average (which defintely contributed to my disinterest in the Phoenix Command rules) but even I can figure that much out so yeah, I'm with ya on this one :confused:

EDIT: And I bet you drink warm beer too!

[Lurken]

[...]
Free League is not really changing the world background that much from what we've seen in 2nd/2.2
[...]
Sweden will be a campaign starting region like Poland was in the earlier editions (like their Tales from the Loop RPG there will be two possible starting locations, in this case, Poland and Sweden)
[...]


Hmm... it sounds then like it will be v2.2 timeline, and the Swedish setting will be an offshot from the timeline to keep it playable, because in v2.2 Core book it says: "Most of the cities of Scandinavia are independent or insular, although broad regions in the south are organized. Areas in the north subjected to fighting during the war are either cantonments, devastated or in anarchy."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

They said that they were keeping the alternate history idea rather than making it a possible future setting. So far, the background/timeline is like the 2nd/2.2 edition, i.e. the Cold War escalates after the Russian coup succeeds and the Russian hardliners take control.
There wasn't much more information than that but it seems Free League are looking at some measure of compatibility with earlier editions. Whether they can achieve that is still an open question for them as things like the play test and so on might require them to change the history/timeline.

[Legbreaker]

OI! I resemble that remark!
You scruffy looking nerf-herder! That's right, I called you scruffy looking!
:D

4389

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It seems the twitch interview is now permanently offline.

[Legbreaker]

Less than a week....
Wonder why?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yes indeed.
I checked on it a few days ago and it was offline then. I kept checking in case it was something about twitch that I knew nothing about (highly likely in many cases as I barely use twitch for anything i.e. me = unskilled operator).
I think this is more about the guy's channel and how he manages it rather than the T2k specific material in this case.

[comped]

I guess we'll find out more about this when August rolls around and the Kickstarter launches? I'm vaguely interested to see this - if only because this is the first possible set I'll possibly own in a physical manner. Shame it will probably mean an end to the player-developed sourcebooks that have been occasionally popping up for sale as of late.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... Shame it will probably mean an end to the player-developed sourcebooks that have been occasionally popping up for sale as of late.
Not necessarily. Free League has a licence to produce T2k material but they don't "own" the IP.
Far Future Enterprises (FFE) still has control over the IP and if someone wants to produce a 1st or 2nd edition sourcebook for retail sale, they don't have to get approval from Free League, they have to get approval from FFE.
Common courtesy would suggest that they work with Free League to avoid potential conflicts in sales etc. etc. but at the end of the day, it's FFE that everyone has to answer to.

[Lurken]

I guess we'll find out more about this when August rolls around and the Kickstarter launches? I'm vaguely interested to see this - if only because this is the first possible set I'll possibly own in a physical manner. Shame it will probably mean an end to the player-developed sourcebooks that have been occasionally popping up for sale as of late.

Not at all. I know that Legbreaker is still working on his ANZAC book, and my work is still progressing on the Nordic book. I bet there will be more books coming in the future as people realize that potentially interesting areas of the world lack information. Such as the Iberian Peninsula as one example.

[Legbreaker]

Correct. My book will be compatible with 1st, 2nd and 4th editions and published by Fria Ligan.

[comped]

Not at all. I know that Legbreaker is still working on his ANZAC book, and my work is still progressing on the Nordic book. I bet there will be more books coming in the future as people realize that potentially interesting areas of the world lack information. Such as the Iberian Peninsula as one example.

Correct. My book will be compatible with 1st, 2nd and 4th editions and published by Fria Ligan.

Great to hear!

[Olefin]

FYI - per a discussion today with Chris Lites

At this moment there is no tie in with the 4th edition to the Twilight 2300AD timeline - meaning that the future for the 4th edition may be wide open and not constrained as the earlier versions of the game were - stay tuned but that would make the 4th edition a very different animal from V1 and V2.2

Waiting to get confirmation from Tomas

[comped]

FYI - per a discussion today with Chris Lites

At this moment there is no tie in with the 4th edition to the Twilight 2300AD timeline - meaning that the future for the 4th edition may be wide open and not constrained as the earlier versions of the game were - stay tuned but that would make the 4th edition a very different animal from V1 and V2.2

Waiting to get confirmation from Tomas

Considering FFE licenses 2300 out to Mongoose, I suppose that makes sense. That does, however, really only mean that we might see a few changes with the timeline to make it a bit less... constrained, like perhaps the French may actually get their shit kicked in. Unless they're sticking with the timeline as established entirely...

[Olefin]

It would open all kinds of things to reinterpretation - keep in mind that the uber drought that basically took out the US efforts to rebuild was done in large part to align the final results of the war with the 2300AD where Mexico kept large parts of the Southwest and Texas was independent because the US was too weak and disorganized to do anything about it

And thats just one area that not having it tied to 2300AD could leave open to change - I personally would like a new edition that isnt tied down to a 300 years in the future canon - leaves you much more open to creating new things and makes the timeline one where you can actually do something and not be like so what if we liberated LA its going to Mexico anyway for 2300

[comped]

It would open all kinds of things to reinterpretation - keep in mind that the uber drought that basically took out the US efforts to rebuild was done in large part to align the final results of the war with the 2300AD where Mexico kept large parts of the Southwest and Texas was independent because the US was too weak and disorganized to do anything about it

And thats just one area that not having it tied to 2300AD could leave open to change - I personally would like a new edition that isnt tied down to a 300 years in the future canon - leaves you much more open to creating new things and makes the timeline one where you can actually do something and not be like so what if we liberated LA its going to Mexico anyway for 2300

Although at the moment, perhaps talking about Mexico and North America might be a bit presumptive - it does give me hope that some of the issues with North America (perhaps even New America itself - was never a fan of it) would be fixed alongside.

[Olefin]

Its something I was hoping would be eventually fixed with a revamped V2.2 offering especially after Mongoose took over 2300AD and pulled it away from GDW and Far Future - but keep our fingers crossed

[Olefin]

And there is the confirmation that the new edition will have no ties to 2300AD

From FB:Twilight: 2000 by Free League

Tomas Härenstam David Adams Chris Lites is correct, there are no ties to 2300 AD.

[Olefin]

FYI splitting the game from 2300AD could make things very interesting indeed

Without that tie in does either the uber drought or New America happen?

The uber drought that basically stopped the US come back and led to the loss of the Southwest to Mexico and Texas going independent has always been controversial but something like that was needed as part of the rationale of the shrunken US for 2300AD. And the creation of New America that kept Civgov and Milgov so busy fighting them that they couldnt put the country back together until 2020 - and thus lose a lot of land to a much weaker country because of that.

Course we wont know most likely at the start of the game - keep in mind that none of that was in the original releases - it took until the Caribbean module to find out about New America and Kidnapped for the drought.

But it means that in many ways the future is wide open as to what could happen if there is no longer the predetermined 2300AD timeline that must be obeyed.

[comped]

FYI splitting the game from 2300AD could make things very interesting indeed

Without that tie in does either the uber drought or New America happen?

The uber drought that basically stopped the US come back and led to the loss of the Southwest to Mexico and Texas going independent has always been controversial but something like that was needed as part of the rationale of the shrunken US for 2300AD. And the creation of New America that kept Civgov and Milgov so busy fighting them that they couldnt put the country back together until 2020 - and thus lose a lot of land to a much weaker country because of that.

Course we wont know most likely at the start of the game - keep in mind that none of that was in the original releases - it took until the Caribbean module to find out about New America and Kidnapped for the drought.

But it means that in many ways the future is wide open as to what could happen if there is no longer the predetermined 2300AD timeline that must be obeyed.

At the very least if it means that we might see some credible attempts at creating successor states beyond the two feuding governments, then I'm all for it.

[mpipes]

FYI splitting the game from 2300AD could make things very interesting indeed

Without that tie in does either the uber drought or New America happen?

The uber drought that basically stopped the US come back and led to the loss of the Southwest to Mexico and Texas going independent has always been controversial but something like that was needed as part of the rationale of the shrunken US for 2300AD. And the creation of New America that kept Civgov and Milgov so busy fighting them that they couldnt put the country back together until 2020 - and thus lose a lot of land to a much weaker country because of that.

Course we wont know most likely at the start of the game - keep in mind that none of that was in the original releases - it took until the Caribbean module to find out about New America and Kidnapped for the drought.

But it means that in many ways the future is wide open as to what could happen if there is no longer the predetermined 2300AD timeline that must be obeyed.

That was really where canon fell apart for me; Texas going independent and Mexico keeping the southwest. The US just never would accept giving up the southwest to Mexico. CIVGOV and MILGOV would have fought to take it back even if the war lasted 100 years.

2300 was just garbage with that back story.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I fully appreciate that people have their own feelings about the link between T2k and 2300 but I would like to say something about it.
As we know, 2300 came first and the "Twilight War" was a significant event within its backstory that was later used as the basis for the Twilight: 2000 setting.

However, it should be noted that to come up with the history for 2300, the GDW staff participated in something called "the Great Game". This was in effect, a massive tabletop wargame in which the future of humanity, from the time of the Cold War until the year 2300AD, was gamed out like any tabletop wargame (including all the random events and strange occurrences that could occur in such a game).

The major events in the Great Game were used to plot out the timeline for 2300.
T2k came about years after the creation of 2300 and it could be argued that it was a happy coincidence that GDW had already plotted out a planet devastating third world war and afterwards wanted a military themed adventure RPG set in a devastated world - the two ideas suited each other.
So, the GDW staff plotted out the third world war already knowing the end result and thus they created a T2k history to fit into that end result (the end result being 2300's backstory).

Was this a good idea, was it necessary, was it effective etc. etc.? Subjectively I would say "yes". It worked well enough to create the game that still gets talked about 20 years later.
Ultimately though, none of that matters. Every T2k referee is free to do what they want with the game history. No matter how you might feel about the link between 2300 and T2k, it's worth remembering how that link came about when trying to understand why it exists in the first place.

[Raellus]

Well said, SSC!

It was an interesting thought-experiment, for sure. Starting with the end in mind works for some creative endeavors, but when the end is randomly generated, this process sometimes leads to some contortions of logic, and creates some pretty monumental narrative challenges to the creators.

Whether the creators of T2k did a good job, or a poor job, is an inherently subjective question; the answer is up to the discretion of the audience/consumer. The great thing about most pen-and-paper RPGs, T2k included, is that the shape the game world takes is ultimately up to the Ref/GM. If you like it, roll with it. If you don't, then switch it up.

It'll be interesting to see what Free League, unfettered by the end-game of 2300, comes up with for version 4. It remains to be seen whether their alternate history will be better, or worse, than v1 or v2 (which, in themselves, divide opinion). I'm excited to find out. The only thing that is certain, however, is that some will like/prefer it to earlier versions, and some will not. For everyone involved, producers and especially consumers, I hope they knock it out of the park.

[Olefin]

I do hope that they can make some good changes to the game they will smooth out some of the holes in canon that have vexed so many over the years on the boards. I agree with mpipes on the particular issue of the American Southwest - while 2300 AD may have been the chicken and T2K the egg that hatched from it there were things that stretched credulity for many. The loss of the American Southwest was one of those things. I am also hoping that the 4th edition being free of the constraints of having to adhere to a preset future timeline will bring a freshness and newness to the game that will result in it being something that will make the current fans happy and bring new ones to it as well.

[Ewan]

I fully appreciate that people have their own feelings about the link between T2k and 2300 but I would like to say something about it.
As we know, 2300 came first and the "Twilight War" was a significant event within its backstory that was later used as the basis for the Twilight: 2000 setting.

However, it should be noted that to come up with the history for 2300, the GDW staff participated in something called "the Great Game". This was in effect, a massive tabletop wargame in which the future of humanity, from the time of the Cold War until the year 2300AD, was gamed out like any tabletop wargame (including all the random events and strange occurrences that could occur in such a game).

The major events in the Great Game were used to plot out the timeline for 2300.
T2k came about years after the creation of 2300 and it could be argued that it was a happy coincidence that GDW had already plotted out a planet devastating third world war and afterwards wanted a military themed adventure RPG set in a devastated world - the two ideas suited each other.
So, the GDW staff plotted out the third world war already knowing the end result and thus they created a T2k history to fit into that end result (the end result being 2300's backstory).

Was this a good idea, was it necessary, was it effective etc. etc.? Subjectively I would say "yes". It worked well enough to create the game that still gets talked about 20 years later.
Ultimately though, none of that matters. Every T2k referee is free to do what they want with the game history. No matter how you might feel about the link between 2300 and T2k, it's worth remembering how that link came about when trying to understand why it exists in the first place.
I was under the impression that T2k came out in the summer of 1985 while 2300 was released in time for Christmas 1986, so that would imply that T2k came first.

[Ewan]

The background history for Traveller: 2300 was developed over the course of 1985-86 using a grand social-political-economic-military-diplomatic simulation known fondly here as The Game.
http://www.waynesbooks.com/TheGame.html
The Game was the center of attention for the GDW design staff for nearly six months (late 1985 to early 1986).
http://stalexone.tripod.com/gg2/2300game.htm
Again T2k came out in the summer of 1985 so predates The Game which was based on the Twilight 2000 world.

[Legbreaker]

One point that appears overlooked by many is there's three HUNDRED years between the two settings. Most countries haven't existed that long!
That's a LOT of time for things to change, even on a more geological scale.

I really don't understand why people get so hung up on the impact T2K and 2300 had on each other given entire nations have formed, disappeared and reformed in that timeframe in the past.

[Lurken]

One point that appears overlooked by many is there's three HUNDRED years between the two settings. Most countries haven't existed that long!
That's a LOT of time for things to change, even on a more geological scale.

I really don't understand why people get so hung up on the impact T2K and 2300 had on each other given entire nations have formed, disappeared and reformed in that timeframe in the past.

I think it upsets people because it locks people into a hard and fixed future. Nothing you could do would affect the future in any meaningful way.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Obviously I'm wrong about the development timeline for 2300 and T2k. They are contemporaries rather than chicken & egg situation.
For their own reasons, GDW saw fit to link the two and as we have seen, this has caused issues.
Regardless of my mistaken post earlier, it still comes down to the Ref/GM and their Players to have the game world play out as they desire it. There's far too many gamers who sit back and follow the script straight from the book without even entertaining the idea of changing anything let alone analysing the game for potential problems.

What does that mean? Basically I think it means exactly what Legbreaker said - people get hung up on the impact T2k and 2300 had on each other. Aside from those people writing official sourcebooks for a game, the rest of us a free to ignore, add, subtract, modify, gut, skin & butcher the carcass in any way we see fit. 2300 is set 300 years into the future, anything can happen in 10 years let alone 30 times that.
As an intellectual exercise there's merit to discussing it but I don't believe it should dominate anyone's actual game.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think it upsets people because it locks people into a hard and fixed future. Nothing you could do would affect the future in any meaningful way.
I understand what you mean, I have seen examples of this myself. When I first started as a GM, I worried about things happening in games that would change the world setting and I tried to prevent them from happening. Then a few years later and some decent experience as a GM and Player I realised that it was "our" game world. Once we started running adventures in that world, it did not belong to the company that made it, it did not belong to the authors of the various sourcebooks, it belonged to my game group. We could do whatever we wanted with it.
I think it was Ed Greenwood who said, basically, use what you want from what I've written but I've left a whole lot of the Forgotten Realms empty so that you can carve your own stories from the world.

Unfortunately too many gamers let themselves get locked into the notion that they are locked into a fixed future. I argue that if that's the case, the problem is with the GM & Players and not the game. That's because there's many gamers who simply do not push beyond the book in front of them.
For example, many many years ago, I bought the Myth Drannor boxed set for the D&D Forgotten Realms setting. It was second-hand but still in brand new condition.
I was friends with the shop manager so I asked her what was the deal with it being so new for a second-hand item. She told me that the original buyer came in on a Friday, ran it for his group through the weekend and then traded it back to the store on the Monday. When asked why, he replied that he had gamed through everything in the boxed set.

This was blatantly incorrect. There was a small adventure in the set, designed to get PCs into Myth Drannor. His group played through it and stopped there.
However there were books in the set detailing the history, the magic, the various factions,who was fighting for control of the ruins, treasure that could be found there, spells that could be learnt there and so on.
All of it could have been used to make new adventures. But he never used it, he just ran that single adventure included in the box and did nothing else.
Gods of Gaming help him if he ever tried to run Undermountain with that mentality!

That seems to be the case with many players, they simply take what's in the book and never think beyond that.
Some RPGs actively encourage you to make your own adventures and if they conflict with what's in the book, the writers encourage you to ignore the book because at the end of the day, it's YOUR game and it's meant to be fun for you and your players.
Keep what you like, throw out what you don't and don't be afraid to actually do a little work for it to make sense to your Players.

[Lurken]

SSC; Very well said. I fully and wholly agree with your statement.

[Rainbow Six]

I completely concur. I’ve been working for a while on a concept for a campaign set about eighteen months after OMEGA. In short, PC's are all veterans of the European campaign who have been engaged in anti marauder operations since their return from Europe. The Military Government now feels that the situation in the north eastern United States is stable enough to allow it to undertake a partialdemobilisation, code named Operation EXODUS (thus alleviating stresses on the military supply chain, particularly when it comes to feeding large numbers of troops).

The key points of EXODUS are

Demobilised troops will be subject to mandatory enlistment in the appropriate State Guard / Militia, and as such are subject to being called up to active duty at any time

Demobilised troops will be allocated a Land Grant in the form of a piece of farmland

Recognising that those who have fought together may wish to remain together, demobilised troops may team up with others to form small groups

The idea is to set the PC’s up as one of those groups in somewhere like Pennsylvania or Ohio. It absolutely will not work with the drought that’s posited in canon but I think it has the potential to be a fun and interesting set up to play, which to me is the crucial thing so I’m ignoring the drought.

[mpipes]

Keep what you like, throw out what you don't and don't be afraid to actually do a little work for it to make sense to your Players.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[Gunner]

Unfortunately too many gamers let themselves get locked into the notion that they are locked into a fixed future. I argue that if that's the case, the problem is with the GM & Players and not the game.

Keep what you like, throw out what you don't and don't be afraid to actually do a little work for it to make sense to your Players.

Absolutely. It's a SETTING, not a straight jacket.

[Olefin]

Where the issues come in are for those writing sourcebooks or modules for the game - i.e. me, Raellus, Legbreaker, whoever else there may be - there we had that straightjacket situation

I.e. with the link to 2300AD you couldnt have a situation where you wrote a sourcebook or module to have the players be part of an effort to retake Southern California from Mexico or Texas that succeeds because it was pre-ordained that Mexico still had those areas in 2300AD (or for Texas that it became independent after a century of Mexican occupation)

Or where Germany tries to put the pieces back together - because the 2300AD timeline said that doesnt happen for nearly 300 years

For the rest its not quite the same situation - in your own campaign you are free to ignore what you like - as I said my own GM had us finding three nuclear armed Tomahawks to take out Ploesti as part of Last Submarine and when we got on board the Soviet ballistic sub it was to try to take her intact and bring her home in Boomer - i.e. that was his campaign not a change to anything official

But if you are trying to write something official for the game or that could be made canon then you have to keep 2300AD in mind for any V1 or V2.2 release - i.e. you have the canon timeline and canon events to deal with

Now however with V4 that wont be there - which will make it a very different thing indeed to write for -

But for players and GM's it was never really the issue it was for others - it more the fodder for discussions between those who defend the canon as sacrosanct (i.e. that the 2300AD canon must be respected even if it makes little sense in certain places) versus those who are open to changes

FYI as an example thats why you see South Africa expanding in the sourcebook I wrote - because I was setting up how Azania came into being in 2300AD (and thus obeyed the pre-ordained canon link between the two timelines)

its also why one sourcebook I was writing for publication was stillborn - because it had the concept of MilGov driving the Mexicans south of LA because of the water situation there (i.e. they cut off the water and the Mexicans had to withdraw to the San Diego area) - but that doesnt match 2300AD for the original versions of the timeline so at best it would have been fan canon

Depending on the history that is presented in V4 such a sourcebook/adventure module could be done there - because there is no fixed point in time (ok yes I love Doctor Who too) that must be respected in the future - i.e. its wide open

So yes that makes me even more excited for the new version - and for the opportunities it will have for those who want to contribute to the canon of the game (hopefully a whole new crop of writers out there) as well as those who want to play it

[Legbreaker]

I don't see it as a straight jacket in the slightest. I see it as a wonderful opportunity to explain some of the things that don't SEEM to make sense.
Also, knowing approximately how things may work out several hundred years from now helps - I don't have to explore so many options so can save a LOT of time and effort.

[Olefin]

one person's straightjacket can be another person's comforter - i.e. it all depends on if you loved the canon as is and wanted to fill in the holes or if you wanted to to change certain aspects about it so the holes wouldnt be there to begin with - but I do not want to get started on a canon argument here in any way - that is not the point of this thread - its about the Undiscovered Country of the new version and that its future is not known

I love the fact that the future isnt set - for both the players and the GM's - especially for long term players who are used to the canon - it will be familiar in many ways - but also have that aspect that nothing is set in stone and that the players can make a difference which makes for the best campaigns - and I agree totally with the earlier comments about how a GM should feel free to ignore what he likes and be free to use the information given to make their world what they want of it -

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Personally, I see that viewpoint as being shortsighted.
You could indeed write a module that has for example, the US taking back the lands occupied by Mexico. You could do it because you can argue that sometime in the following decades, Mexico again invades and takes that land. Because it occurs way after the events in your module, it actually has no impact on the game play and no impact on the module.
It is essentially "something for the future to worry about", a future set a very long time after any T2k campaign. You can safely ignore the connection to 2300 because you aren't writing about the next 300 years, only the years for the T2k setting.

[Benjamin]

I have always loved that Twilight 2000 is the back story to 2300AD. To me these two games will be forever linked.

If you look at the 2300AD sourcebooks the history they give within, even counting the Earth/Cybertech Sourcebook, if very sparse. And many times it contradicts its self because they allowed too many different authors to add their own take to the setting (not to mention the horrible editing). Unfortunately, none of the new versions of 2300AD have addressed this failing and as they move away from being linked to the Twilight War it has gotten worse. (plus Mongoose Publishing also has bad editing and the person overseeing 2300AD has had numerous restarts and delays).

I completely agree that the US with the three way split suffered worse than other nations; heck Canada in Twilight 2000 sources had at least 4 different competing factions (native American, western provinces, eastern provinces and Quebec). And there are a lot of changes I would make to the 2300AD background to account for what we know of the Twilight War canon. Even so I really, really like both settings. (The original versions.)

The best long term gaming session I ever had was a Twilight 2000 game that morphed into a 2300AD game thanks to a bit of Morrow Project crossover. So if Free League goes too far out of its way to divorce T2K from 2300AD I’ll be very disappointed.

[Olefin]

I have always loved that Twilight 2000 is the back story to 2300AD. To me these two games will be forever linked.

If you look at the 2300AD sourcebooks the history they give within, even counting the Earth/Cybertech Sourcebook, if very sparse. And many times it contradicts its self because they allowed too many different authors to add their own take to the setting (not to mention the horrible editing). Unfortunately, none of the new versions of 2300AD have addressed this failing and as they move away from being linked to the Twilight War it has gotten worse. (plus Mongoose Publishing also has bad editing and the person overseeing 2300AD has had numerous restarts and delays).

I completely agree that the US with the three way split suffered worse than other nations; heck Canada in Twilight 2000 sources had at least 4 different competing factions (native American, western provinces, eastern provinces and Quebec). And there are a lot of changes I would make to the 2300AD background to account for what we know of the Twilight War canon. Even so I really, really like both settings. (The original versions.)

The best long term gaming session I ever had was a Twilight 2000 game that morphed into a 2300AD game thanks to a bit of Morrow Project crossover. So if Free League goes too far out of its way to divorce T2K from 2300AD I’ll be very disappointed.

Ben - was there ever a poll or anything done here that shows how many people played both games like you did - i.e. T2K and 2300AD? I never played 2300AD so dont really have the same experience you had. I.e. not sure how big a part of the T2K base is also a big fan of 2300AD as well

I did some research into Africa for instance so my module would as much as possible dovetail into 2300AD for things like France and Azania - but that was about it

[Ewan]

I think when GDW released Traveller 2300 (as it was originally called) they tried to capture players of Traveller (hence the Traveller in the name) and Twilight 2000.

It ended up a bit confusing as the rules had nothing at all to do with the original Traveller game and while it was the world of Twilight 2000 three hundred years in the future it gave some strange alliances and power blocs (as mentioned in previous posts).

GDW released a revised edition within two or three years of the original version coming out and renamed it 2300AD to solve part of the confusion.

When I played Twilight 2000 and 2300AD back in the 80s I was not really interested in the backstory of 2300.

Hopefully the new edition of Twilight 2000 will not silly plot lines because it sounds cool or is in vogue at the moment.

[Targan]

I liked the linked T2K-T2300 timeline, but each new edition of T2K is under no obligation to honour that link in its own alternative future. And let's face it, it would be trivially easy for any GM to tweak the timelines of T2013 or the new T2K to fit back into T2300's timeline.

[Legbreaker]

I liked the linked T2K-T2300 timeline, but each new edition of T2K is under no obligation to honour that link in its own alternative future. And let's face it, it would be trivially easy for any GM to tweak the timelines of T2013 or the new T2K to fit back into T2300's timeline.

Exactly right. There's nearly 300 years to play with which is a VERY long time.
Just think, until not long before WWI, France and the UK were enemies and had been so for generations. That was less than half the time we're talking about between T2k and 2300 and just one example of how alliances etc can change in a relatively short period. Another generation or so from now and those two nations could well be at war again, and again, and again, and all that before the 300 years we're talking about is done.

There is absolutely no reason to feel constrained when writing for T2k just because 2300 says "this" is the situation. The journey to get there is long and twisted. Use that.

One more thing is historians aren't always right. Those in 2300 could and probably did get details wrong about what happened in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It's not like anyone was taking meticulous notes towards the end of WWIII...

[Olefin]

2300AD did have the defined borders and nation descriptions and there was some backstory on the 300 year interim - that’s where you get into an issue trying to change that story. Not having it there makes for a much easier writing experience - ie there is no defined story that must happen because no there is no defined future

[Legbreaker]

Yes, the backstory does cover the three hundred years, but it's very vague for the most part and, as per my last post on this subject, just how accurate can it be when written so long after the fact?
There really aren't many significant constraints for the T2k writer.

[Benjamin]

Olefin - I don’t recall seeing a poll like that here. I do know there was some overlap of fan bases for the two games back in the old Yahoo Groups and older (think GeoCities) websites.

I do agree that with some tweaking you could make any version of T2K fight in as the background to 2300AD. 300 Years is a long time and as I said the historical background material for 2300AD is rather sparse and messed up.

Even T2K supplements disagree on the history of the Twilight War. For instance the Core Timeline (any version) says that the Soviets first used tactical nuclear weapons when NATO forces crossed into Soviet territory. But the Survivors Guide to the UK tells a different story on page 8. I defer to the core TL and assume the French wrote the survivors guide to justify their withdrawal from NATO.

[Legbreaker]

Even T2K supplements disagree on the history of the Twilight War. For instance the Core Timeline (any version) says that the Soviets first used tactical nuclear weapons when NATO forces crossed into Soviet territory.

They don't actually disagree. The core history is more global in nature while the UK survivors guide is written with Europe as the focus.
BOTH books state the Soviets were the first to use them, however in Europe NATO fired first, although that was still AFTER the Soviets were already well on the way to turning China to glass.

So the PACT could rightly claim that NATO were the aggressors. Given it was German that invaded Poland in the first place, the PACT technically held the high moral ground, at least in Europe. Meanwhile over in China, the world was breaking out the popcorn and watching two communist countries do their very best to destroy each other.

[Benjamin]

They don't actually disagree. The core history is more global in nature while the UK survivors guide is written with Europe as the focus.
BOTH books state the Soviets were the first to use them, however in Europe NATO fired first, although that was still AFTER the Soviets were already well on the way to turning China to glass.

So the PACT could rightly claim that NATO were the aggressors. Given it was German that invaded Poland in the first place, the PACT technically held the high moral ground, at least in Europe. Meanwhile over in China, the world was breaking out the popcorn and watching two communist countries do their very best to destroy each other.

They completely disagree.

“By early July, NATO advanced elements were closing up on the Polish-Soviet frontier in the central region, while continuing the siege of Pact-held Warsaw. The Polish government in exile established its temporary capital in the city of Poznan, and asserted its claim to the pre-1939 Polish borders in the east. In the Far East, Pact forces began major withdrawals all along the front, and the mobile elements of the Chinese Army began a victorious pursuit.
On July 9th, with advanced elements of the 1st German Army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons. In the West, they were used sparingly at first, and for the first week were used only against troop concentrations no further than 50 kilometers from the Soviet border. In the Far
East, however, they were used on a massive scale. Chinese mechanized columns were vaporized, caught in the open on the roads in imagined pursuit.“ - Twilight 2000 Referee’s Manual, page 25

“IntheFar East,theChineselaunchedamajoroffensiveinthe summer.The6thDivisionwasattachedtoChineseforcesdri ving towards northeastChina. InJuly, it was transferredto the 31stArmy and linked up with the Americans on the Yalu River soon after. At this time, the Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange began, and the divisiontookheavylossesfromseveraltacticalnuclears trikes. Thesurvivorswerewithdrawn, insurprisinglygoodorder, tosouth- ern China.
As August arrived, BAOR was forced to switch to the defensive. Soviet forces were attemptingto relieveWarsaw, and NATOforces to the north and south of BAOR's theater were conducting mobile defensive withdrawals. On15September, theSoviet7thGuards Tank Army broke through to Warsaw. First Corps began a fierce withdrawal action in a desperate attempt to stop the Soviets, but itwastooheavilyoutnumberedandwaspushedback. By the end of September, NATO began to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets. The Soviets replied by using their own nuclear weapons.“ - Survivors Guide to the United Kingdom, page 8 (sorry but the old scanned PDFs don’t copy-paste well.

So, Survivors Guide has the Asian nuke use first, in July, with nuclear release in the West occurring about 2 months later. Furthermore, first use in the European Theater is now initiated by NATO. These are major differences.

One can argue whether the West German offensive (I only use V1 because in reality there was pretty much no way for the Soviet Union to keep Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary as allies post 1990.) was aggression by NATO. My take is, based upon what we know from real history is that to hold East Germany there were some major bloodbaths as the Soviets cracked down on East German protestors. West German military units may have crossed the IGB first but they most certainly had the moral high ground. Furthermore, the Soviets expanded the war in mid-November by invading Norway. This should have triggered full NATO participation but even then the US led portion of NATO refrained until early December. I can understand French reluctance to assist in a forceful reunification of Germany but I cannot fault the countries that moved against the Soviet Union either.