Mongoose Publishing and Twilight 2000
 

Just read through the "State of the Mongoose 2010" post from their forums.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php

They are talking about publishing 2300AD and Twilight 2000 (updated to a new timeline) using their version of the Traveller system. Thought you'd like to know!

Relevant QuoteLater,
Chris

Colin Dunn was the writer of the so-so 2320AD update of 2300AD for one of the d20 systems out there. Given how well he 'fixed' the Kafer War in 2320, I can only hope he won't be involved in a T2K update.

Maybe people will have a use for all those "not available in the Twilight 2000 timeline" items on my site.

Not again....

Yep, again...and again....and again. :wall:

So, what was the "fix"? I've been searching online for a while now and can't find a clear answer.

You're not likely to get yet another re-hash of the Cold War going hot. Learn to live with it. Or write your own.

- C.

Or simply ignore what you don't like, understanding that tastes differ amongst reasonable people.

I don't like where this is going. We don't need tension and acrimony between us old school fans (or "derelicts" if you prefer) and the Young Turks.

Tegyrius is right however and while his comment was short on words it shouldn't necessarily be taken that he was getting short with other people.
It's far too easy to interpret the wrong tone in something that someone writes as opposed to hearing/seeing them speak and thus is becomes far too easy to read the wrong intent in someones comments.

You're right and your points (and Tegyrius') are well taken. The tone of his post, however, was pretty clear. I don't want this to turn into sniping, especially given the posts surrounding the recent demise of 93 Games Studios and the reliscense. For my part, I will choose the high road.

Something I don't think many members of this forum have ever acknowledged or understood is that most of the so-called Young Turks started out as, and remain, fans of GDW's original game. Keith and the freelance talent he assembled under 93GS' banner were, without any exception of which I'm aware, long-time players or GMs of the first and second editions. I've been playing since I picked up the boxed set sometime in the late eighties. Did I miss the meeting where someone decided that a DD-214 with a 1991 or prior ETS date was a requirement for valid Twilight: 2000 fandom?

Raellus, I think you took my tone exactly as intended. I spent the last four and a half years trying to do my best by the fan base represented here and I'm tired of this forum's members tacitly condoning slams at my work with your (collective) silence. You (again, collective) have been doing it since a certain specific member began issuing unfounded personal attacks and threats of violence against me and Keith. It ceased being tolerable a long time ago. I don't hold any illusions about this community finding my input valuable, but it would be nice to be able to continue reading and occasionally posting here without seeing yet another cheap shot.

SSC, I also think you took my message exactly as intended. I do not believe another treatment of the Cold War would be commercially viable in today's gaming industry. I felt that way when we started planning 2013 in mid-2006 and I stand by that viewpoint, even if I am less than fully satisfied with the final implementation of the 2013 timeline. A "classic" timeline is unlikely to appeal to many gamers outside the remaining Twilight: 2000 fan base. If any established publishing company gets the license, I expect their direction will be another attempted modernization of the property in order to play on contemporary fears and make it more relevant to an audience larger than the ex-GDW fan base. The only way anyone's going to update the Cold War is if a team of fans gets the license themselves and proceeds to publish for love rather than profit. Even if that happens, they're going to be competing with the vast body of fan-written work that many people (chief among them this forum's more ardent contributors) have put out since GDW shut down. What's more, any such publisher's target audience will judge their new products by the standards those fans have set, perhaps even moreso than against GDW's original material.

- C.

I believe there's two equally valid ways of approaching yet another version of T2K.
The first is to leave the timeline basically the same as GDW had it - world political relations fell apart in the late 80s and 90s before turning nuclear in late 1997.
The other is to completely rewrite everything with a point of diversion in 2010 (or thereabouts) and set the game about 10-20 years in the future. Obviously this wouldn't actually be Twilight:2000 anymore, but the general feel would be roughly the same (provided the background was written that way).

This. You can see where Leg's used to saying what he means rather than worrying about getting paid by the word.

- C.

I totally agree with the second point being the best of the two in my mind. A 2008 POD is actually quite workable considering you had a US election coupled with a war between russia and a nominal US ally. While I doub't the end result would change a more active US role would poison relations between east and west and could with the right spin slowly lead to a new cold war (military spending to "cure" the recession?).

I believe Russia is making noises at the moment about the European missile shield. I don't know any details but that could be a viable point of conflict.
We've also got the current hostility from North Korea which potentially could lead to some ugliness. I know it's a bit of a stretch (but it is a game afterall) but the north, supported by China and perhaps Russia could invade the south. Given a serious breakdown in western intelligence estimates the north could be given a greater strategic strength than they do IRL and cause a second Korean War which might expand to other regions.
Who knows, Iran might get twitchy and attack the western forces in Afganistan while Iraq rises up as well. We might even see Israel attacked by it's neighbours (again!) and English football fans could go on a rampage across France...

At the risk of being heretical...

It might be more viable to have a more Merc 2000 approach, but with regular military troops instead of being focused completely on mercenaries. The game could therefore flow with the real-world news.

I was just thinking a Merc:2000 approach might work better than a total rewrite.

Why does timeline matter anyway?

That's like asking what's so important about history!
A properly written timeline is a vital foundation for a good game world. If you don't know how the world came to be the way it is, how can it grow and be believable?
Sure the players might not need to know the details, but the GM sure as hell does!

And unless the PCs are going to be transplanted into a world from another reality, they should at least have some personal knowledge of the events that occurred within their own lifetimes. In any setting that includes broadcast communication or reliable and affordable long-distance travel, anyway. Which means the players need to have access to that level of information so they can align their characters' histories (and goals) with the world.

- C.

The War of the Soccer Hooligans...

Didn't Honduras and El Salvador fight a war over the outcome of a soccer game in the 1960s?

No, not at all. My Young Turks label was not meant as an insult at all. By the same token, not all of us "old school T2K'ers" are reactionaries or dinosaurs stuck back in the Cold War, which I felt your post implied.

The game could definitely use a "re-imagining" for the new milenium. I agree whole-heartedly. You and the other 93GS folks put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into doing just that. For that I must once again commend you. I sympathise with you and the rest of the 93GS team. You've taken a lot of grief here and elsewhere (though, I am not aware of the threats to which you allude) and that's not cool. For my part, I've always tried to keep my criticism of T2013 fair, level headed, constructive, and impersonal. I wasn't aware that it was such a labor of love until quite recently, when the lease expired. Up until that point, I thought that a larger, more "corporate" entity was responsible for the development of T2013.

That said, I was not a fan of T2103. I think it's OK to say that. Honestly, I was turned off right from the beginning when the game was under development and 93GS was soliciting fan/guest contributor input, but limiting said input exclusively to that provided by folks who could prove former military service and/or prior RPG-writing experience. Although I understand that ya'll didn't want unsolicited material from well intentioned teenaged munchkins, wannabe, chairborne rangers, or miopic, hardcore T2K fanboys, to me it smacked of elitism. Especially since a lot of folks in the T2K community- not all of whom are ex-military- have been spending years creating their own websites, databases, fan fiction, etc. It just seemed like 93GS was overlooking such a rich vein of amazing fan-created material, much of which could be easily tweaked to fit into the T2013 vision, to go it alone. 93GS was also writing off a good portion of a built-in market by not being more receptive to this community. I believe that it was stated several times by 93GS folks that T2K had to be updated for a couple of new generations of PnP gamers who knew little, and could care less, about the Cold War milieu. That's fine, but that's not to say that us folks who grew up during the Cold War (i.e. the 50s-80s) don't have valuable input or want a new, updated setting for the basic game concept.

When the T2013 alternate future came out, I was not impressed and a lot of other original T2K fans felt the same. Our argument wasn't "This isn't a retread of the original 1983 version so it's not cool!" but that, based on current geopolitics and recent military history, the T2103 campaign backstory did not ring true. Other much more viable hotspots were suggested by members of this forum and others as being possible tinderboxes for a "new" WWIII scenario: East Asia (Korea-China-Russia-Japan-U.S.) and the Middle East (Iran, Israel, Iraq, U.S.) were then, and still are, likely candidates. That input too was ignored. Once again, the public response from 93GS to "old school" fan reaction smacked of elitism. The message some of us received was, "We don't care what you bitter T2K fans think; this is our baby and this is the way we're going to do it. If you don't like it, don't buy it." Fine. It's your creation, you're in charge. But, I'm not sure it's fair to get upset when some people use this public forum to express their dislike for the end product.

So yeah, some of us old-schoolers also have a bad taste in our mouth and not because T2013 wasn't just a simple update of the original T2K v1.0. Through it all, I've tried my best to be cordial and to couch my constructive criticism with praise for the T2013 team's hard work. I have no beef with any of you 93GS guys. I was genuinely sad to hear that the plug was being pulled on your version. I thought that some of the stuff you guys was putting out was pretty darn cool. I am sorry that some folks here got nasty in their criticism of your product. That was uncalled for. If the main offender is who I think it is, he was banned from this forum for similar behavior towards other forum members. I just sort of resent the implication that us orginal T2K apologists are just a bunch of old, narrow minded, bitter, reactionary neysayers who take great pleasure in cutting down 93GS and T2013. For the most part, I really don't think that is the case at all.

Raellus, you're right. I'm being excessively reactionary (and threadjacking) here. Over to PM.

- C.

I don't see the big deal with the timeline, people can make up whatever story they want. There is nothing happening in today's world that is as scary/cool as the cold war going hot. Everything is to flexible now and not as commited. I personally found the 2013 weapons sources books way cooler anyway. If I role played, I would just use source books and make up my own stories. I don't see why everyone hated the 2013 timeline they are made to be altered away.

Woah, wait just a second there big fella. I am a founding member of this forum and in the past I've been a strong contributor. I and several other prominent members of this forum have been active on the 93 Games Studio Twilight forums and have actively encouraged interaction between members of the two forums. I think you are being way harsh on those members of this forum who are fans of the work that you, Keith and the other 2013 contributors have done. I own a hardcopy of the T:2013 rules and I think they are excellent. I've done my best to smooth over conflicts between members of the two forums, both in general thread posts and by PM.

I don't recall reading any threats of violence made on this forum towards you or any other members of the T:2013 design team. I certainly would have moved to put a stop to it if I had. Were those threats made in PMs? I have to say that you've hurt my feelings a little Clayton, suggesting that I've tacitly supported criticism of your work through my "silence". I certainly don't see things that way at all.

I've supported and applauded your work many times on this forum. Sure, I don't loudly leap to the defence of T:2013 when it is criticised here but that is mainly because I am waaaaay past the point where I want to get into flame wars with other forum members. I was a bit of a troublemaker in the distant past and I want things to stay nice and calm on this forum nowdays. If others want to criticise others' works that is their business. As moderator I try to keep things civil and as a forum member I choose not to get into arguments that create bad vibes and nothing more.

Clay, I think you may have forgotten along the way that you have friends and admirers here.

He's referring to Law and his thinly veiled and sometimes unveiled threats. For instance, Law's Bigger Man thread from a few years ago. I remember it because I took him up on his offer and met him for lunch after I redeployed from Iraq.

Totally agree
 

I've never used and never will use anyone's but myown and/or the GMs take on timeline....I basically think it's cool that people write this and that and I enjoy tegerious' work and hope you guys continue...

For god's sake no more "this is canon"-discusions-----let's have more that's not a cannon this is a cannon ;)

Tegyrus,

I understand we don't want to get into sniping over T2013, and this is not meant as a flame.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is actually set during the Cold War. It's certainly not a Cold War going hot, but it's success is proof positive that this time period and the conflicts that arose from it can and does bear enormous fruit in terms of commerce. In simple terms, someone is making quite a buck off the Cold War.

Granted, you can very easily argue Black Ops is not T2K (the difference being several decades, a hot war and an established computer game franchise) and there is no way to piggy-back off that success in terms of gamer cross-over. That isn't my point. Professional game designers may never want to revisit T2K's Cold-War based background. Still, maybe someone should because all kinds of people really do seem to like it or at least aren't turned off by it.

Tony

I'd also be willing to wager that most purchasers are like my two teenage sons...skipping the story to get to the shooting or bypassing it altogether with the multiplayer, online combat.