Scandinavia during T2K?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think the issue for some here is the tone that some who share your opinion take when sharing their thoughts on the matter.

Bad tone has come from both sides of this argument. I felt that needed to be said.

As to the rest of your post I agree completely.

In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.

Either view for a T2k world is IMO valid. I have interest in both viewpoints and feel both should be nurtured here.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

Bad tone has come from both sides of this argument. I felt that needed to be said.

Absolutely. I was remiss in not explicitly stating this.

Originally Posted by kato13

In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.

That's a really cool way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by kato13

Either view for a T2k world is IMO valid. I have interest in both viewpoints and feel both should be nurtured here.

Agreed, 100%. I just want all parties to be cognizant of tone, especially when presenting a contrary opinion. Things only get ugly here when folks get snarky. When we all play nice, we can productively debate almost any T2K-related topic without creating a toxic atmosphere.

[Targan]

Most strong statements on this forum against Howling Wilderness have come from US members (although given that the vast majority of members are from the US, that may be an invalid observation). Still, when we've had discussions in which members have posited more post-Twilight War damage to Australia than what I'm comfortable with, I've had a pretty strong emotive reaction too. I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's a normal bias for someone living in the US to want a post-Twilight War US to be less beaten up and more powerful than described in Howling Wilderness. I get that. I argued most strongly against suggestions that things like the climate effects described in Howling Wilderness weren't possible. I think they absolutely are possible (and my understanding of climate science is part of that belief).

As a non-US resident, I have no great negative emotional response to a post-Twilight War USA being a total mess. However I also consider T2300 to be canon for my T2K universe, so I know that the US can and will build itself back to a place of penultimate power in the post-Twilight War universe. MilGov and CivGov reunite within the PCs' lifetimes and the long road to recovery begins.

[Olefin]

Let me say a few things

One

In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.

Kato that has to be one of the most profound things I have heard here on the board - and a great way of looking at both sides of the argument and how both sides have validity.

Two

If anyone thought I was posting in a disrespectful tone let me please offer my most abject apologies. That was not my intent in any way. I was just trying to show, from an AD&D perspective, using Greyhawk as my basis, that a fantastic AD&D game could be had in both the totally civilized areas of Greyhawk and the totally wild areas - and that if the intent was to recreate the feel of AD&D for the players that you dont necessarily have to be the wilds of the Pomarj to still have one hell of a great game.

Three

If the idea of HW and Kidnapped was to turn the US into an area where you could play AD&D then I have to wonder if the designers ever really knew what AD&D was. While that world had vast areas of wild country overrun by monsters it also had large and vital cities and kingdoms that were very civilized as well. The previous US modules had that feel - yes there were areas that were wild and needed taming but there was also a base of civilization as well. But HW and Kidnapped took that base of civilization and threw it to the four winds. Very few AD&D campaigns exist in a ruined world where civilization is a thing of the past - players interested in that tended to go for Gamma World or Aftermath or other similar games.

To me the modules that felt the most like AD&D were the NYC module, the Madonna and Krakow - there you had that base of civilization still left but also wild areas to be tamed and conquered - and all had places where players could rest and re-equip and then sally forth again to fight the monsters. HW and Kidnapped made a world where there really wasnt anything left but a constant fight for survival. Again much more like Aftermath (which I played and had a very good time with by the way) than AD&D.

And again all of this is my opinion - really the game is what you and your GM make of it. It is up to him to shape it for the fun of all concerned. My GM ignored HW and the climate aspect of Kidnapped and kept the US on the path of rebirth - "The end of darkness immediately before the dawn." - but that path was going to be a very long one even with those two modules in play.

But I bet Mad Max America would have been a fun game to play as well. Just dont say it would be like AD&D - say its like Aftermath - now thats more accurate

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

As a non-US resident, I have no great negative emotional response to a post-Twilight War USA being a total mess.

I agree with Targan. I bought Howling Wilderness when it first came out, read it once or twice and that was that. It made absolutely no impression on me one way or the other, and I doubt if I've even looked at it in over twenty years other than perhaps as a point of reference to check something in the timeline. On the other hand, when I first read the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom I had what seems like the same reaction that some of the US members had to Howling Wilderness - I didn't like it for a number of reasons and found parts of it to be unrealistic and / or extremely cliched, which is ultimately why I ended up spending something in the region of six years writing an alternative version. For me, it isn't a case of levels of damage inflicted or whether my country "wins" or "loses", it's about what is, in my opinion, realistic. Obviously - and thankfully - it is impossible to ascertain what would or would not be realistic in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, so ultimately we all set our own standards as to what we think is realistic or not and play our campaigns accordingly - as Olefin says, the game is what you make it and what you want it to be.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't take the AD&D concept too literally or place too much importance on it.
The T2k designers weren't trying to make AD&D type worlds, what they were trying to do was make a modern world where the players could experience the same freedoms as every player could in the typical AD&D world.
They wanted to have a world were the player characters had the same prospects for adventure as the PCs in any AD&D game rather than be part of a hierarchical organization that would control everything they do, i.e. the military.

[mpipes]

You also have to keep in mind that T2K has a GM, and, as in AD&D, the GM could modify things as they wished to their (of the players) liking. The players want a M1A2 "Giraffe" and you do too, then let them get all the fuel they need and even ammo from the local lord who happens to have those things.

For example, for my purposes, Italians in general were pro-NATO in 1990, so I went with the idea that the Soviet politicians wanted to avoid the war, and then were sucked in by their alliance with Greece, and thus, were now allied with the Soviets - something the populace was not happy about. When TDM occurred, and even neutrals were hit, the Italians revolted, supported by the army, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister executed. Spring '98 found the Italian Army smashing into the flanks of the Pact forces in Austria and Czechoslovakia, and basically forcing Pact forces back to the Danube. For France, pro-NATO riots are so bad, that martial law exist with overtones of a military dictatorship by 2000. Things are bad enough for the French, that a good chunk of the still floating navy, including the Foch and the Jeanne d'Arc, mutiny and join NATO. I also have the Brits for the most part dumping the dreadful L-85 in favor of L1A1s and 5.56mm converted MPiAK-74Ns (German AK-74s in 5.56mm NATO).

If you want to change things around, feel free to do so. No doubt things would be bad in the US, but does anyone think CIVGOV or MILGOV is going to just abandon nuclear reactors? These can be islands of organization, and that is what I made them. I also had the Soviets invading Finland (I don't think NATO would have) and Sweden declaring war on the side of NATO in December 1996 because of repeated territory violations by Pact subs and aircraft (which I strongly believe would have happened). The Swiss Army enters Austria and Germany in December 1997 officially for "disaster relief" but freely engages Pact forces whenever possible.

In short, do your own thing and don't get hung up on following cannon.