RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-17-2020, 12:41 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-17-2020, 12:54 PM
comped comped is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-17-2020, 12:58 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-17-2020, 08:20 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-18-2020, 10:38 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-19-2020, 12:59 PM
comped comped is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-19-2020, 07:36 PM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-19-2020, 08:23 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.