Mongoose Publishing and Twilight 2000

[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]

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.

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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