New Edition of Twilight 2000 Interview

[Olefin]

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

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Olefin]

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 -

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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.

[Benjamin]

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.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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

[Ewan]

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.