Mongoose Publishing and Twilight 2000

[Legbreaker]

This approach is exactly how I'd like to see a new version of T2K come out. Leave the time at the year 2000 just tweak the game materials to include some IRL events.
One thing that I personally think is becoming more and more of a problem as time rolls on is the "retrofitting" of technology into the classic T2K timeline. How many times have we seen items only available in the 21st century being trotted out by players in a game?
I mean feel free to pull in whatever you want in a game set in say 2010, but items not even thought of until 2000+ in classic T2K?

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The system is broken. I can't deny that. Let's slash some more of its funding and see if that helps. All I can do is keep busting my ass to try to help my students learn something while they're in my classroom. If I work hard enough, maybe our nation's standardized test score will go up a little and my pay won't be cut again this year. I should be thankful I haven't been permanently RIF'ed yet. Thanks for the morale boost, Ed.

And TEACHER'S pay shouldn't be cut. It's the pay of the administrators and Union Bosses who are taking all the funding AWAY from class rooms... all the while claiming to be getting more funding for those classrooms.

They cut the pay or fire the teachers doing the jobs they are suppose to do, while they are living the fat life.

Like you said.. the system is broken. And that's what Eddie had said. Not that individual teachers are the problem. It's the teachers unions and Education Departments MISMANAGEMENT that is the problem.

Look at my post up a few, about how the USSR SHOULD have been one of the most prosperous countries in history thanks to the massive amounts of resources at their fingertips. But proper management of resources can make even someone who is skint live like a king within their means, but improper management can turn a king into a pauper.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This approach is exactly how I'd like to see a new version of T2K come out. Leave the time at the year 2000 just tweak the game materials to include some IRL events.
One thing that I personally think is becoming more and more of a problem as time rolls on is the "retrofitting" of technology into the classic T2K timeline. How many times have we seen items only available in the 21st century being trotted out by players in a game?
I mean feel free to pull in whatever you want in a game set in say 2010, but items not even thought of until 2000+ in classic T2K?

If we extend the timeline past 2000, there are a lot of things we have now that would have still be developed. Having the slow build up of a hot war starting in the year 2000, would definitely work... and allow new blood to want to get involved in the game because it's all new take on the Cold War.

Think of our world right now if the Cold War had continued in the manner we've been discussing here. Think of what we would have today if the Cold War was still going on. Yes we'd still be posed at the swordpoint with the Soviets with alot of the same technology we have right now. hell, we might have been able to develop that technology earlier.

[Raellus]

A lot of the criticisms posted here are valid. But it's hard to hear. I take pride in my work and it's tough to detach myself as an individual from the institution of which I am a part. It's a really hard job. Have you ever tried to motivate, inspire, and educate 150 15-18 year-olds on a daily basis? It's rough sometimes. It can feel like a thankless job when I see my paycheck shrink on an annual basis while the public pins most of American society's on my employer. If only they knew what it was like...

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Actually Tony... it was Gorby who volunteered total nuclear disarmament, but ONLY if the US abandoned SDI. And as much as Reagan hated Nuclear weapons... he didn't want to abandon the idea of SDI because to many OTHERS in the world had gotten the nuclear bomb genie to visit them.

Nate,

By gosh, I never knew that! Apparently it was complicated; the Soviets first proposed eliminating INF weapons systems in Europe and reducing Strategic missiles by 50%, the US countered with all ballistic missiles eliminated within 10 years but retaining SDI (and sharing research), the counter-counter offer was no out-of-lab SDI research within those 10 years, and there things fell apart due to slight miscalculations on both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

Either way, both sides at that time seemed to accept in principle almost complete disarmament and it could have happened. In fact, such a concession could have eventually cost Gorbachev his job before he let the Iron Curtain drop, or at least tied his hands so that (say) he didn't have the latitude to let the Soviet client states go their own ways.

Regarding current technology and T2K, it mainly takes some spine on the part of the GM to make sure things are Jake and consistant. Much of what we use now was available in embryonic form in the 90's and the buildup to war would have accelerated weapons technology considerably. Most of the time the difference would be in advanced information technology and networking (not generally an issue due to battlefield attrition and EMP) and weapons/vehicles, mainly an issue of numbers. (What is generally reflected on Paul's site.)

Tony

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

And TEACHER'S pay shouldn't be cut. It's the pay of the administrators and Union Bosses who are taking all the funding AWAY from class rooms... all the while claiming to be getting more funding for those classrooms.

Teachers should be be highly-paid -- at least four to five times what they are paid now, if not more. Their job is hard, our educational system sucks, and we'd attract more and better teachers if they were paid in accordance to the difficulties of their job. And in accordance to the importance of their job.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

If we extend the timeline past 2000, there are a lot of things we have now that would have still be developed.

Very true. What I'm getting at is the apparently growing habit of pulling what is available now back to a game (versions 1.0 and 2.x) set almost a generation ago*. It's a bit like trying to justify M-48 tanks being involved in D-Day....

*That makes me feel soooo old!

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Raellus

A lot of the criticisms posted here are valid. But it's hard to hear. I take pride in my work and it's tough to detach myself as an individual from the institution of which I am a part. It's a really hard job. Have you ever tried to motivate, inspire, and educate 150 15-18 year-olds on a daily basis? It's rough sometimes. It can feel like a thankless job when I see my paycheck shrink on an annual basis while the public pins most of American society's on my employer. If only they knew what it was like...

Yes... I have. I REALLY wanted to be a history and art teacher. I have helped motivate and inspire kids to actually look things up when i start talking about the founding of this Republic. yes it does feel like a thankless job. but you also hold the future in your hands when you are teaching those children. Some teachers take that HONOR and trust so seriously as you do, but there are alot of teachers who don't. Who are simply bad teachers, who should have NEVER been given teaching certification. You know that better than we do, because you've had to work with some of them.

Hell, most of us only have knowledge of this from either being parents or having sat in a classroom. And most of us on this forum haven't been in a classroom in 20+ years. I've been going to college and discovered that most of the recent graduates are so.... behind it's not even funny.

They don't know HALF of what we did when we graduated. And it's only been 20 years since i graduated. they aren't even getting civics lessons in class, just indoctrination into 'nanny state' is good and Republicans/Conservatives are all racists who want you to die (yes i can say this because my youngest sister had to put up with a teacher trying to push that on her when she was in school).

We're not attacking YOU or your profession... we're attacking those who have ABUSED their positions, and made your job such the thankless and hard job it's become.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It's a really hard job. Have you ever tried to motivate, inspire, and educate 150 15-18 year-olds on a daily basis? It's rough sometimes.

Sure is. Sometimes more so than when I was in the infantry.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Very true. What I'm getting at is the apparently growing habit of pulling what is available now back to a game (versions 1.0 and 2.x) set almost a generation ago*. It's a bit like trying to justify M-48 tanks being involved in D-Day....

*That makes me feel soooo old!

Thanks not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a new game with a slower build up to the nuclear exchanges and game time occurring. Bascily have the Sino-Soviet border war slowly build up to the DDR finding their best troops being used as cannon fodder by the soviet war machine and deciding they want out (along with several other of the satellite states)... have the build up of the war simmer and build up.. a limited nuclear exchange that doesn't knock everyone back to the stone age, but the war is continuing with everyone having to deal with the EMP effects (admit it... EMP with today's tech would really FUCK everything up) as well as protecting the nation form outside forces.

but having the war hit EVERY part of the Globe (including our Aussie and Kiwi friends) is what i'm talking about.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Nate,

By gosh, I never knew that! Apparently it was complicated; the Soviets first proposed eliminating INF weapons systems in Europe and reducing Strategic missiles by 50%, the US countered with all ballistic missiles eliminated within 10 years but retaining SDI (and sharing research), the counter-counter offer was no out-of-lab SDI research within those 10 years, and there things fell apart due to slight miscalculations on both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

Either way, both sides at that time seemed to accept in principle almost complete disarmament and it could have happened. In fact, such a concession could have eventually cost Gorbachev his job before he let the Iron Curtain drop, or at least tied his hands so that (say) he didn't have the latitude to let the Soviet client states go their own ways.

Regarding current technology and T2K, it mainly takes some spine on the part of the GM to make sure things are Jake and consistant. Much of what we use now was available in embryonic form in the 90's and the buildup to war would have accelerated weapons technology considerably. Most of the time the difference would be in advanced information technology and networking (not generally an issue due to battlefield attrition and EMP) and weapons/vehicles, mainly an issue of numbers. (What is generally reflected on Paul's site.)

Tony

Exactly... that would allow alot of things to get into. Having that slow build-up with alot of simmering brushfires all around the world all flaring up during the time the campaign setting would start.

My idea for an RP (World War IV: A World in Flames) allowed for Role-play during the Flashpoints period (right before the war starts), during the Brushfires period (alot of little conflicts and low intensity wars all around the globe) to Firestorm period (the entire world is involved in a massive multifront war were some fronts you're fighting against someone, but in another your fighting along side them).

[Raellus]

I like your phased approach, Nate.

In addition to something like that, I'd like to see the next T2K itteration come with more or less generic templates for various apocalyptic event horizons. There'd be one for a global pandemic of sort (reducing the population dramatically but leaving infrastructure largely untouched), one for global climate change (food and water shortages, rising see levels, etc.), one for something that would destroy most electronics (EMP, solar flares), and one for your good old fashioned global thermonuclear war. Hell, you could even throw in an alien invasion or zombie rising. I'm thinking of a tool kit for the creative GM to use in fashioning a near future of his liking. Of course, exhaustive current/near future gear lists are a must as well.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I like your phased approach, Nate.

In addition to something like that, I'd like to see the next T2K itteration come with more or less generic templates for various apocalyptic event horizons. There'd be one for a global pandemic of sort (reducing the population dramatically but leaving infrastructure largely untouched), one for global climate change (food and water shortages, rising see levels, etc.), one for something that would destroy most electronics (EMP, solar flares), and one for your good old fashioned global thermonuclear war. Hell, you could even throw in an alien invasion or zombie rising. I'm thinking of a tool kit for the creative GM to use in fashioning a near future of his liking. Of course, exhaustive current/near future gear lists are a must as well.

You bet. and there was a really good RP that took that approach called "Freedom Fighters"... it allowed the GM and players build their own world.

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In addition to something like that, I'd like to see the next T2K itteration come with more or less generic templates for various apocalyptic event horizons. There'd be one for a global pandemic of sort (reducing the population dramatically but leaving infrastructure largely untouched), one for global climate change (food and water shortages, rising see levels, etc.), one for something that would destroy most electronics (EMP, solar flares), and one for your good old fashioned global thermonuclear war. Hell, you could even throw in an alien invasion or zombie rising. I'm thinking of a tool kit for the creative GM to use in fashioning a near future of his liking. Of course, exhaustive current/near future gear lists are a must as well.

Wow, that's really spooky. I was just getting ready to post that in a future revision of the Twilight franchise I wouldn't include a timeline at all, rather a comprehensive pile of resources for a GM to roll-your-own apocalypse with rules and tips for including nukes, pandemic/zombies, asteroid/comet strike, new ice age, economic collapse or a Chinese menu to incorporate elements of all of them. But I hit the back button instead of preview and there your post was.

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Why does timeline matter anyway?

Seriously, I ask not only since timeline angst is a recurring centerpoint of conversation around here but also because I played OG 1st ed/ Twilight for years before I ever bothered reading Countdown to Armageddon. It was an entertaining read but not particularly germane to the core concept of "You're soldiers caught behind the lines of a nuclear war." All that stuff with Italy pulling out of NATO is interesting but it just ... didn't ... matter. Deep background, yeah. But it had nothing to do with why the characters were in Poland or solving the immediate problem of whether and how to get out of it. The 2.0/2.2 updates were just as entertaining and ultimately just as irrelevant to actual gameplay.

I understand players want to be able to integrate their characters into the story and the GM needs to know what's what but folks make it sound like opting not to include a detailed orbat and accounting for the month-by-month disposition of every brigade in the global arsenal is some kind of failure. And yeah, I want my guy to be a part of the story, but I can make him a farmboy from Iowa without having to pull out an almanac to research the average rainfall, mean low temperature and consumer price index in order to determine whether his parents could have plausibly produced the crop yield required to afford any siblings.

[Legbreaker]

It's mainly important to the GM rather than the players. Just think how different it would be if France and Italy remained in Nato and fought alongside the Germans, Americans, British and others during 1996-97? Just think what the addition of another couple of armies on the western side would have allowed Nato to do to the Pact....
Given those additional forces I think it's safe to say there would be no reason for anyone to be in Poland. The world might in fact be a glowing cinder as the Soviets opened up with everything they had rather than limited strikes, just in an effort to survive - victory against those odds would have been extremely unlikely.

Remember, nothing happens in isolation. Change something in one place and the ripples will be felt halfway across the world.

As another example, what if India and Pakistan didn't go to war? What if they sided with the Soviets? How would that alter deployments in the middle east?

Understanding the background is vital to running a believable world.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I have a few thoughts here, so bear with me as I wander from topic to topic...

Tegyrius (Clayton) and Eddie are both correct when they say that the Cold War setting isn't much of a drawcard for many gamers these days. Okay, I'm not doing market research on it or anything but I'm involved with RPGs, console games & computer games and participating in a few blogs/forums that deal with all three of them and with a range of participant ages. I base my statements on the comments made by people in those forums and some of them are not big thinkers (when you have 20-yr olds thinking that if the apocalypse comes then they should stockpile bottlecaps because obviously that will be useful as a form of money...)

The games that are produced by people with big budgets obviously will get more fans and those companies tend to focus on fantasy or horror genres so the big RPGs these days are obviously fantasy or horror, military sims are still a niche market just like post-apoc games are.
The military and post-apoc genres don't sell RPGs as well as fantasy does even when they do have a big budget. It doesn't matter how good your game might be, the market for those types of games is too small for most big publishers to bother with these days.

While a Cold War setting is an interesting aside for some console/computer gamers, it's largely irrelevant to their game play - most of them just want to "blow shit up". When it comes to console games, there is a very strong tendency to choose old (as in a generation past or more) enemies because they aren't seen as potentially offensive or politically incorrect - hence why many games feature Nazis, easy to hate so therefore nobody will object to the game player destroying them in the hundreds.
It's the same reason why zombies feature in so many movies this decade, they're a faceless enemy and thereby
1. avoid the labels the media uses to demonize any current enemy we may have and
2. avoids offending anyone from the relevant group if the game treats them in a derogatory manner. We've all heard someone somewhere say that because the terrorists are Muslim, then all Muslims are terrorists - which is a patently absurd statement for many reasons but the "little thinkers" like their sound bites.

What does all that really mean? That console games are driven by the 'best formula' for making money, money gets put into flashy graphics and sexy guns because they draw the crowd - offend nobody but appeal to everybody. If they made Twilight: 2000 as a computer game these days, they'd remove everything that makes the RPG interesting and it would be just the same as every other 'shooter' military game out there because of that mentality.
Story telling is an aside in most console & computer games because at the end of the day "BOOM - headshot" is more interesting for many players than the actual background (except in the most general terms). You won't appeal to many younger gamers unless you can draw them in with something that appears relevant to their idea of entertainment as it is today.

As for education, it is the cure to many ills but most corporations don't like people being too well educated because then they might make an informed choice instead of just buying the crap that the corps want to sell you. Governments avoid education for exactly the same reason but in the sense that they don't want people making an informed vote.

And finally my waffling comes to end...
It sounds to me that some of you are talking about Aftermath... build your own end of the world and then play through the ruins.
Ultimately, a remake of Twilight: 2000 is not going to be commercially successful, not because the Cold War will or won't sell but because the game itself is based in the two genres that are just not big sellers with today's audience.

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's mainly important to the GM rather than the players. Just think how different it would be if France and Italy remained in Nato and fought alongside the Germans, Americans, British and others during 1996-97? Just think what the addition of another couple of armies on the western side would have allowed Nato to do to the Pact....
Given those additional forces I think it's safe to say there would be no reason for anyone to be in Poland. The world might in fact be a glowing cinder as the Soviets openned up with everything they had rather than limited strikes, just in an effort to survive - victory against those odds would have been extremely unlikely.

Remember, nothing happens in islolation. Change something in one place and the ripples will be felt halfway across the world.

As another example, what if India and Pakistan didn't go to war? What if they sided with the Soviets? How would that alter deployments in the middle east?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I see where you're going but I read all of that and all I can muster is "Who cares?" Though I guess it might more correctly be, "So what?" - since so many of you obviously care.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Understanding the background is vital to running a believable world.

I think folks confuse background with setting. Setting is where you are. Background is the universe of events that had to transpire before you got there. Setting is of paramount importance. Background is not. Players need a detailed setting in order to understand their situation and gauge its gravity. Beyond a little immediate local history, they don't really need much in the way of background at all in order to play (and enjoy) a game. I contest the same is true of the GM, especially in that he needs to be focused on looking forward, not back.

I mean not to diminish your cogent analysis or geopolitical acumen, but it seems I may be tilting at a windmill and this is clearly a case where I expect to remain the sole voice of dissent.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

I mean not to diminish your cogent analysis or geopolitical acumen, but it seems I may be tilting at a windmill and this is clearly a case where I expect to remain the sole voice of dissent.

Snake Eyes,

Don't worry, we still like you anyways!

Ride on into the sunset, lonely yet noble cowboy...




(My wife's response to this post was, "you're an ass!")


Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

(My wife's response to this post was, "you're an ass!")

I think she may be the one person on the planet who truly knows you!

[Targan]

Wow. So many posts in one thread in one day. Took me more than a quarter of an hour to read them all.

Fellas, lets try to reduce the acrimony a little eh? Lets all try to take a step back and a deep breath before we reply to posts that we take personally. And yes, I accept that I may sound like a hypocrite saying that because yes, in the past I have over-reacted to posts that were not necessarily aimed at me. Do as I say not as I do

For the record:

1) I regard teaching as being one of the most important careers in western societies. I have nothing but respect and admiration for good teachers. I think public school systems in every western society could probably do with more funding.

2) I always have some level of respect for those who have served or are serving as commissioned officers. I can't speak for other militaries but you don't get to be an officer in a Commonwealth military service if you are an idiot. I got into a long and interesting conversation recently with my fiance's great uncle and he mentioned that he had been a senior commissioned officer in the Australian Army. At first I thought he had retired as a lt colonel or colonel, then on further questioning I discovered he had been a brigadier general! A really interesting chap he is, very, very intelligent.

3) I was following the development (on the 93 Games forum) of T:2013 before it was published and I bought a hard copy at the first opportunity once my local gaming store shipped copies in. I love the system (char gen and combat especially) but didn't like the back story. I still regard it as an amazing body of work however and admire and respect the effort and talent that went into it.

4) It is an unfortunate fact (in my opinion) that I have learned to keep many of my opinions to myself on this forum as a direct result of what I consider to have been extreme over-reactions to my and others' posts in the past. I think it is natural for people to defend their own countries from perceived criticism. I think that as a result of the great majority of members of this forum being Americans, non-Americans who dare to make statements even remotely derogatory about the USA on this forum are risking long and loud reprisal posts. I think many of us (myself included) sometimes have a hard time in stepping back and reading critical posts objectively.

5) We are all gamers, and even more pertinently we are all fans of Twilight:2000 in its various iterations. Maybe we should spend more time focusing on the things we have in common than the things we do not?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

2) I always have some level of respect for those who have served or are serving as commissioned officers. I can't speak for other militaries but you don't get to be an officer in a Commonwealth military service if you are an idiot.

I'm not seeking to dispute what you've said but I do wish to add that there are always exceptions to the rules.
I had a Platoon Leader at one time who insisted that we dig Section/Squad trenches, no problem with that except he wanted two people at the same time to do it to speed things up. Even that wouldn't have been so bad but it was two people with pickaxes in the dark of night.
One of the Section Leaders performed an act to voice his supreme displeasure at said officers lack of common sense - true it was only on an exercise and even though the enemy were only firing blanks but it's the only time I've witnessed an officer being saluted under tactical conditions in the field.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Chris

I knew they were trying for the "Classic" feel, but it sounds like I should just dig out my little black books again instead of looking at the core. That is if (I mean when, honest) they actually get it out in 2011 or so.

I'm going to cross my fingers on this.

Did they keep the hard-core survival role in each term? I remember going seven terms in the scouts, getting a mandatory re-enlistment, and dieing in the eighth.

I like the more detailed chargen of MongTrav over Classic, more things you can weave into a background.

Hard-core Survival is an option, but the standard rule is that you are forced out of the career, possibly with an injury.

Mercenary does have more career options (Wet Navy, Air Force, training cadre, etc.), and mass-combat rules and mercenary ticket generation. There are more weapons & gear (esp. heavy ordnance), of course.

[enrious]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

I mean not to diminish your cogent analysis or geopolitical acumen, but it seems I may be tilting at a windmill and this is clearly a case where I expect to remain the sole voice of dissent.

No, I'm at the same spot myself.

I'm starting up a new campaign myself and basically I only have the situation around the party.

The players don't even need to know that...they just need to have an awareness of an even smaller world - roughly 500m around them (and yes, some back story).

All that aside, that's me.

A lot of people seem to have a lot of fun making the world and I have fun reading it.

It's just not for me though.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by kato13

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

i'll buy it as long as the back story is good and they don't kill off 90% of the world like in 2013k. 2013k sucked so bad i wish i had my money back for it.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

i'll buy it as long as the back story is good and they don't kill off 90% of the world like in 2013k. 2013k sucked so bad i wish i had my money back for it.

Many, many people don't like the backstory in T:2013. What do you think of the Reflex system? I really like it.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

i'll buy it as long as the back story is good and they don't kill off 90% of the world like in 2013k. 2013k sucked so bad i wish i had my money back for it.

I'm curious. Exactly what casualty rate would you consider acceptable for a modern WWIII scenario? FYI, GDW's figures in the 2.0 timeline were 52% in the United States and 45% in Canada, and those numbers were exclusive to primary and secondary casualties from the 1997 nuclear strikes over the 1997-2000 period (pp. 234-236).

To put it another way, what survival rate would you consider plausible for a global conflict producing near-complete disruption of the medical and agricultural industries that enable the current population density in developed nations?

- C.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

i'll buy it as long as the back story is good and they don't kill off 90% of the world like in 2013k. 2013k sucked so bad i wish i had my money back for it.

Wow, that's pretty opinionated. I loved the reflex system, and thought the background was pretty well done, and very well researched. I had a group put together (it fell through, oh well), and we were going to use the Reflex System, but the orig. Twilight 2000 1.0 background - not because we thought the 2013 background stunk, but for nostalgia reasons.

I never understood why some people are so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater - not just here, but in all the RPG industry. If someone doesn't like the setting, but the rules are just fine, why not use them, and make your own background? Excepting for T:2000, I don't know of a system that I ever ran where I used the background as presented. At best I tweaked it a bit, at worst I chucked it out completely and wrote my own, or took another background for the game.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

I never understood why some people are so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater - not just here, but in all the RPG industry. If someone doesn't like the setting, but the rules are just fine, why not use them, and make your own background? Excepting for T:2000, I don't know of a system that I ever ran where I used the background as presented. At best I tweaked it a bit, at worst I chucked it out completely and wrote my own, or took another background for the game.

That's a good question. I think it's because a lot of would-be GMs don't have the creativity or time to create their own background. I was 11 when I picked up T2K v1.0 and I don't think I could have come up with better at that age. A lot of more mature GMs still don't have the wherewithall to create a believable background/setting. They rely on the published materials.

Also, I think most people are drawn to a game system precisely because of the background. "I like Fantasy and Cyberpunk lit so I'm going to check out Shadowrun..." or whatever. I've seen lots of online GMs who use different rules for a game but only a few examples of GMs who create new backgrounds/settings for use with an existing rules system.

Lastly, it's a question of cost. Nowadays, most PnP RPG core books are pretty expensive. I think most people will balk if presented with only half a useable product. Although I heard a lot of good things about the Reflex system, and was curious to try it out for myself, I didn't fork over the cash for T2103 bacause I didn't like the background. Now that the producer's kaput, I wish I'd gone ahead and picked up a copy. But, at the time, I didn't want to pay just for a new rules system.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Lastly, it's a question of cost. Nowadays, most PnP RPG core books are pretty expensive. I think most people will balk if presented with only half a useable product. Although I heard a lot of good things about the Reflex system, and was curious to try it out for myself, I didn't fork over the cash for T2103 bacause I didn't like the background. Now that the producer's kaput, I wish I'd gone ahead and picked up a copy. But, at the time, I didn't want to pay just for a new rules system.

I've always wondered how 93GS would have done, had they released the Reflex System standalone, and then T:2013 as a setting - that's how alot of game systems are doing it nowadays. Take Savage Worlds for instance - the 'Explorers Edition' - essentially just the base rules - sells for $10. Then you can buy setting books. They have everything from WWII, to High Fantasy, Steampunk, Wild West, dozens more. That way as a GM or group, you get the core rules, and plug-in the settings you want, or simply create your own.

No idea if that would have worked for 93GS or not however. I do know I still plan on getting a 2013 game going as soon as I can