Alternate Versions of Twilight 2000

[Raellus]

A place to share alternative approaches, homebrews, and modded versions of T2k.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by TyCaine

For those more hard line enthusiasts though I think a v5 with a thoroughly investigated and cogitated classic Cold War timeline would be best, with, perhaps, a modern update being something more of a 'setting' supplement later...

Yes, that's a thought that's crossed my mind too - standard setting plus a 2040-50 setting, both using the same mechanics and probably the latter a timeline extension of the earlier.
40-50 years is long enough so that any major influences PCs make in 2000 wouldn't be able to be reversed or whatever in the intervening half century.

Then there's this idea floated on Discord earlier today...

Attachment 4545

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If there is ever a 5th edition, I see two options - keep it set in 2000 and compatible with 1st and 2nd ed, or push the time forward to at least ten years after the publication date (20 might be better). I'd definitely like to hear people's opinions on those two ideas.

I'm in broad agreement with both ideas. My preferences would be the following

1. Go forward 10-20 years as you've suggested (I've said a couple of times that I think V4 would have been better served doing this rather than trying to go backwards and come up with a rebooted Cold War timeline). Call it Twilight 2030 or Twilight 2040, make it clear that it's a variant rather than a reboot.

2. Stick with the V1 timeline. Keep all the key points (Sino Soviet War, West German 'invasion' of East Germany, gradual nuclear escalation leading up to TDM, etc). Maybe look at whether some things could be tweaked a bit - for example, the situation in Yugoslavia where the US allies with the Serbs - but I'm not even sure if that's desirable / advisable as any tweaks ultimately means it's not V1.

The idea of combining the two into one product would be interesting if they could be aligned. I don't know how well that would work in practice though - I mean, isn't that essentially what happened with T2k and 2300 (albeit with a longer gap between them) and one of the issues was that having a pre determined future put some restrictions on new material for the earlier period?

[mpipes]

GDW as I recall planned a series of module changing the basic backstory to create an alternate setting. I remember a pandemic setting and post asteroid strike as well as a near future setting (~2030 I think). Seems like there was a zombie setting proposed as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You're thinking of the survey they had in the back of the 2.2 main book.
I think that all the scenarios you mention were part of the survey in which they asked people to submit their preference for the next game that GDW would produce.
It would have used the same rules system so just like the Merc: 2000 book, while not actually being part of T2k, it would be compatible with rules, equipment and so on.

The scenario chosen by most was a near future setting in which nations fought each other for basic resources - water, food. It would be set in the 2000s and feature more modern technology and was called Armor 21.

[3catcircus]

Any thoughts on combining 2013's mechanics with v1/v2.2 timelines?

I like the d20 dice pool roll under mechanic from 2013. I do, however, think the lifepaths should be expanded as per v2.2/Mitch Berg/Paul Mulcahy, along with making the pre reqs for the SOF type life paths a little easier to access.

I suppose you could also go in reverse, using v2.2 as-is other than going to the dice pool system from 2013. I see no reason why that couldn't happen since they went from a d10 to a d20 between v2 and v2.2...

[Tegyrius]

It shouldn't be an issue. One of the design objectives of 2013's game engine, Reflex, was to be usable with the 1.0/2.0/2.2 timelines (or for non-post-apoc modern or near-future settings).

- C.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

It shouldn't be an issue. One of the design objectives of 2013's game engine, Reflex, was to be usable with the 1.0/2.0/2.2 timelines (or for non-post-apoc modern or near-future settings).

- C.

Is there a set of design notes that make it easy to directly convert v1/v2.2 content? I've been looking at stats and it isn't clear to me what the magic formula is...

[Raellus]

Back in 2014, Rainbow Six and I worked out a timeline/future history for Twilight 2030. In a nutshell, the US and a somewhat fractured NATO is fighting a resurgent Russian Federation (including allies Belorussia, Bulgaria, Serbia) in Eastern Europe; while a new iteration of SEATO battles the Chinese and North Korea in Asia. It’s a quite a bit more complicated than that (the narrative history fills a 12-page Word doc), but I don’t want to bore you with the details. Of course, the war escalates- first, with the use of battlefield tactical nukes and, later, a limited strategic nuclear exchange, culminating in a failed NATO summer 2030 offensive. Some of what we predicted in 2014 has already come to pass in the real world today; fortunately, none of the really bad stuff has. Yet…

It was a fun thought experiment, and led to a couple of brief T2030 PbP campaigns, but it never felt quite like good ol' T2k.

Although I like the idea of playing Twilight 2000 with current/near-future weapons, vehicles, and equipment, there are a couple of issues that arise as a result.

If both the PC party and the OPFOR have equal access to modern weapons, optics, NODs, comms, body armor, etc., then you essentially end up playing Modern Warfare with paper and pencil. If the PC party has greater access to said gear, then they become OP (bordering on godmode); on the other hand, if the OPFOR has greater access to said gear, it won’t be long until a TPK scenario takes place.

Also, IMHO, having access to a lot of modern/near-future tech kit sort of violates the retrograde tech ethos of T2k.

-

[kato13]

For those who have not dug into the thread map
https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=773


Here are two links related to alternate versions that can be found there.

Other version related threads
https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=773#ver

The products of the DC Working Group (which I will always consider version 1.5)
https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=773#t2k_user

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Is there a set of design notes that make it easy to directly convert v1/v2.2 content? I've been looking at stats and it isn't clear to me what the magic formula is...

Sorry, but no. The only place direct porting is really feasible is with some armored vehicle AVs, and that breaks down on the low end of the scale.

- C.

[Legbreaker]

T2k can really be played in my opinion with any military type rule set, as long as it covers important issues such as radiation, scavenging/scrounging/foraging, limited fuel, and resource management.
The setting more than the rule set is the game.

The problem of course is that not every rule set contains the necessary elements (some of which I listed above). GDW I think got it right, or at least close to it.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

T2k can really be played in my opinion with any military type rule set, as long as it covers important issues such as radiation, scavenging/scrounging/foraging, limited fuel, and resource management.
The setting more than the rule set is the game.

The problem of course is that not every rule set contains the necessary elements (some of which I listed above). GDW I think got it right, or at least close to it.

I disagree slightly in that I think both the rules and the setting can be adapted, because there's a tone to both. I went the other way and used the T2K rules for World War I, because there aren't that many games that cover disease, foraging, and resource management in their rules to the extent that GDW did. There are definitely other rule sets that can handle the setting, but the T2K rule set can also handle other settings - I think it would also work well for partisans in WW2, as another example.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

I disagree slightly in that I think both the rules and the setting can be adapted, because there's a tone to both. I went the other way and used the T2K rules for World War I, because there aren't that many games that cover disease, foraging, and resource management in their rules to the extent that GDW did. There are definitely other rule sets that can handle the setting, but the T2K rule set can also handle other settings - I think it would also work well for partisans in WW2, as another example.

The key is that the T2K rules work for any type of game involving gunpowder weapons. If you know how the designers came up with the stats for various weapons and vehicles...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

I disagree slightly in that I think both the rules and the setting can be adapted, because there's a tone to both. I went the other way and used the T2K rules for World War I, because there aren't that many games that cover disease, foraging, and resource management in their rules to the extent that GDW did. There are definitely other rule sets that can handle the setting, but the T2K rule set can also handle other settings - I think it would also work well for partisans in WW2, as another example.

Generally I'm in agreement - there are other rule sets which can be used, they just need to be able to handle those elements (such as radiation) which aren't commonly found in other RPGs.

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

The key is that the T2K rules work for any type of game involving gunpowder weapons. If you know how the designers came up with the stats for various weapons and vehicles...

Absolutely. We can see that in the 2.2 rules being used with only relatively minor tweaks in several other games GDW produced - Traveller: TNE, Dark Conspiracy, Cadillac's and Dinosaurs for example.
And we do in fact know how the stats where calculated. The formulae were published in the Traveller book, "Fire, Fusion and Steel". I'm sure Paul can shed a LOT more light on that subject than most of us though.

[Targan]

When I used Gunmaster for T2K I used Guns, Guns, Guns (3G3) by BTRC to do all my firearms calcs. I started with 100 or so ammunition types and then built families of firearms based on those.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the important thing with all of this, is that the rules developed for T2k were given a lot of thought in terms of providing the right "feel" to the game world. As much as the setting itself conveys that feel, the rules can also enhance or detract from that.
GDW got it right - it may not be perfect, but it's close enough.

I tend to disagree with the notion that "T2k can be played with any rules system because the setting defines the game". I believe the rules work hand in hand with the setting to create that feel.
A system with wonderful world building is ruined by bad rules and the world's greatest rules system is next to useless if the world setting is so dull and lifeless that you don't want to play it.
Again I'll say, GDW got it right and again, not perfect, but close enough.

It's for these reasons that I have not found rules systems such as Savage Worlds to be particularly satisfying for T2k, nor the Gumshoe system, Year Zero and definitely not any variation of D&D rules (such as D20 Modern - I mean, really? I need a Feat to be able to fire full auto?)
None of them cover such things as disease, radiation, scavenging, resource management and so on, in a manner that satisfactorily enhances the world building.
Sure they may cover "some" of those aspects, but usually not the entirety and often not with the same depth or they feel like an afterthought, tacked on after the main rules were created. Any of these can break the immersion for some people.
I think most gamers will happily suspend their disbelief but it requires the game to pull them in. The world building and the rules need to create that feel so that players do get immersed.

I think there's only a few rules systems around that could do the same as the GDW system and unsurprisingly, they are typically anchored in the same sort of approach to the game world i.e. not super-heroic, not pulp action and so on but grounded in the "real world". Most definitely some of them can allow those elements but it's not their foundation.
Aftermath, Cyberpunk 2020, the 2013 rules, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS even early edition ShadowRun to an extent - all of them either already cover many elements found in the T2k rules or they can be easily tweaked to allow those aspects without breaking rules and/or setting.

[Targan]

Well said.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

The key is that the T2K rules work for any type of game involving gunpowder weapons. If you know how the designers came up with the stats for various weapons and vehicles...

It can work for games that don't explicitly have gunpowder weapons as well, particularly if one has the TNE rules for creature generation. I have a set of rough guidelines for converting D&D 3.x or Pathfinder 1e to GDW stats. I still need to polish them and put them up somewhere, but roughly:

1. Include the shield block combat maneuver from Franklin's Traveller Pages. D&D/PF shields modify the skill roll by their AC bonus minus 2 (this is so a heavy shield is the default, a buckler is slightly worse, and a tower shield is better).

2. For melee weapons, anything with a D&D/PF max damage of 4 or less becomes 1d6, 5-6 is 1d6 + 1/2 Str, 7-8 is 2d6 + 1/2 Str, 9-10 is 2d6 + Str, and 11-12 is 3d6 + Str. Ranged weapons are generally 6 or less is 1d6 and 7 or higher is 2d6, treating armor like melee weapons do. Magic weapons add +1 to effective skill, do +1 damage, and ignore a point of AV for each plus (so a weapon +3 adds +3 to skill, does +3 damage, and ignores 3 AV).

3. D&D/PF normal armor gets halved as parenthetical armor, so Leather (AC +2) is AV (1) in GDW, while Full Plate (AC +8) is AV (4). Magic armor gets its full value as regular armor, so Leather +2 is AV 2(1). This is explicitly to make low-level magic armor valuable and someone with high-level magic armor pretty scary to go up against.

4. Humanoids get half their hits from size and half from average stats. I have a spreadsheet to do this and will need to explain it thoroughly when I write up the article.

5. Non-humanoids get their hits based on size, with tweaking based on a Dragon article on how to create monsters in D&D 3 - for example, Beasts get a 25% boost because of their hit die type, and Dragons get heavily modified, with their actual size being half of what their hit die would imply, and getting a boost to hits above that, so that a 10 HD animal is about 8 tons and 82 hits, while a 10 HD beast is the same mass but 103 hits, and a 10 HD dragon is about 3 tons and 144 hits.

6. Natural armor converts to AV like armor (+2 AC is AV (1)), while Damage Reduction converts to AV at DR 5 = AV 1. Messing with an Iron Golem and its AV 3 (11) is a bad idea unless you have very heavy weaponry.

It's very far afield from canon T2K, but I started working on it for a few reasons: to see if the House Rules could handle fantasy, as a way of using the vast number of D20-era sourcebooks as ways to create more aliens for Traveller, and as a tribute to the very early magazine article about WW2 Germans encountering a Necromancer's army of orcs.

[pmulcahy11b]

Here's an interesting question...I realize that this is way outside of the T2K timeline, but did the COVID-19 pandemic occur in the future of the T2K timeline in 2020?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Here's an interesting question...I realize that this is way outside of the T2K timeline, but did the COVID-19 pandemic occur in the future of the T2K timeline in 2020?

Probably not. Trade links with Asia wouldn't be as strong as they are in our world, and population densities, especially in China, would much lower. So even if the virus hopped from a bat at a wet market to a human in Wuhan, or whatever, it probably wouldn't spread around the world like it has.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Probably not. Trade links with Asia wouldn't be as strong as they are in our world, and population densities, especially in China, would much lower. So even if the virus hopped from a bat at a wet market to a human in Wuhan, or whatever, it probably wouldn't spread around the world like it has.

-

I'm inclined to agree with you for the same reason, but wouldn't make a great double-T2K super-campaign?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'm inclined to agree with you for the same reason, but wouldn't make a great double-T2K super-campaign?

Indeed.

Humanity in the T2kU: "Things couldn't get any worse than the last 25 years, right?"

Coronavirus: "Hold my beer."

Even without it, though, mankind would still have plenty of diseases to deal with.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Here's an interesting question...I realize that this is way outside of the T2K timeline, but did the COVID-19 pandemic occur in the future of the T2K timeline in 2020?

No.
It'd be worse given the USSR's widespread use of biological weapons during the war (not much mentioned in the game, but IRL it is a core part of their total war doctrine). Probably wouldn't be covid, but there'd absolutely be something very, very nasty in it's place, possibly something different in each region based on what was thrown at them previously.

[Matt Wiser]

My alternate version: no Soviet invasion of Alaska, and no Mexican invasion of the Southwest and Texas. I know, we've discussed these ad nauseaum in the past, but to each his own.

[Targan]

Have the Mexicans invade Alaska and really confuse everyone

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

Have the Mexicans invade Alaska and really confuse everyone

I think that would confuse even the Mexicans!