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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 -

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.