What was the plot-arc of Return to Europe?

[Raellus]

I think a more plausible- if not quite as catchy- title for the series should have been "Stayed in Europe".

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It seemed to me to be "Do it again, but in v2 with a little more detail."

Exactly. They were essentially dressed up reissues of the original Poland modules for the "new" v2.0 edition of T2K.

Except that the Return To Europe series were written for 1st edition with the likely connection being the Last Sub series taking the PCs from the USA back to Europe.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Rendezvous In Krakow module which most definitely was The Free City Of Krakow written up for 2nd edition.

[Abbott Shaull]

The thing is the "Return to Europe", I always took that GDW decide/realize it was easier to write modules for places other locale like in North America.

They were in the last of series of modules and were release shortly before version 2 was release. So lot of the things they knew what was going to happen were already known. Not only that the covers were done with new graphics for GDW. I think these were intended for the v2 restart of the game, but they didn't want to alienate all those who v1.

Like I said with almost any of the modules they could be used in almost any order with some creativity.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thing is the "Return to Europe", I always took that GDW decide/realize it was easier to write modules for places other locale like in North America.

I agree, it would have been far easier to make an adventure in most countries in Europe where you could involve multiple different factions - Soviet, Ukrainians within Soviet forces, NATO forces, Italians, Czechs of German ancestry, Poles with ideas of independence, Danes attached to German forces attached to British forces, guerrilla groups, marauders, vigilante groups, scavengers, independent villages and so on and so on.

Once the PCs had got back to the USA, they had to contend with a whole lot less - MilGov, CivGov, New America, Division Cuba, the Mexicans.
GDW basically had to really twist & screw with the USA to make it a worthwhile place to game/adventure in whereas Europe was already mixed up & with many, many different groups and so made a much more diverse place to game in.

[Abbott Shaull]

Not only that it was probably easier to make stuff up from somewhere out of the US, where as in the US they would have to watch how they laid out the adventure and background.

The concepts behind New American were easy to come by, but plying them in the modules were difficult at best...

[helbent4]

The thing is the "Return to Europe", I always took that GDW decide/realize it was easier to write modules for places other locale like in North America.

They were in the last of series of modules and were release shortly before version 2 was release. So lot of the things they knew what was going to happen were already known. Not only that the covers were done with new graphics for GDW. I think these were intended for the v2 restart of the game, but they didn't want to alienate all those who v1.

Like I said with almost any of the modules they could be used in almost any order with some creativity.

Abbott,

In the words of Loren Wiseman:

"Consumer demand for more adventures set in Poland has been
increasing for the last several years and has prompted the publication
of the Return to Europe series, of which White Eagle is
a small part."

It was a financial decision, and there's nothing wrong with that. Any successful company has to give their customers what they want!

I think if they wanted to somehow bridge v1 and v2, they would have just done something along those lines. If anything, the v2 version of the Vistula Epic would have been that bridge. That's much more going back to the well than the "Return to Europe" series, which at least advanced the timeline. In fact, I can't recall any other game company re-releasing a ten-year-old adventures using a new rules set. In the RPG industry, adventures apparently don't sell, so I think it's reasonable to publish and republish something that actually sells and there is a demand for.

I do like the idea that "time passes", that events are not static after the PCs leave. Considering the widely divergent circumstances of different player groups, I guess it would be hard to put together a coherent "theme" or story arc for every situation. They still could have at least tried something for new player groups, linking the adventures.

Like probably many, I've never been satisfied with the political and military situation of the USA during and after the Twilight War. I think that even if the Mexicans' hash is settled it's still unlikely a large return to Europe is in the cards for at least a few years. Still, you could see small groups being inserted for important missions.

Tony

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Abbott,

In the words of Loren Wiseman:

"Consumer demand for more adventures set in Poland has been
increasing for the last several years and has prompted the publication
of the Return to Europe series, of which White Eagle is
a small part."

It was a financial decision, and there's nothing wrong with that. Any successful company has to give their customers what they want!

...In the RPG industry, adventures apparently don't sell, so I think it's reasonable to publish and republish something that actually sells and there is a demand for.

Tony

These are interesting points worth looking at a little deeper because the recent line of thinking that adventures don't sell has largely come from one company over the last ten years.

There's a certain fantasy rpg whose publishers decided that adventures didn't sell enough copies to be worthwhile, it was too much effort & money to produce an adventure that only sold a few hundred copies (a fair enough point but only to a point) and they basically started selling sourcebooks, rule books and class books instead of adventures. A bit of a problem for the players but many third party companies stepped up and made up for the lack.

These days a lot of newer and/or younger GMs don't want to make adventures for their players (some even complained that it was too much work or that they didn't have the imagination to create one), they'd rather just buy one, play through it, sell it back to the shop, buy a new adventure and do the same thing again next week - rinse and repeat.

Kind of funny when there is obviously a demand for adventures from the newer generation of players but the "main" company is trying to convince the buyers that they don't want adventures, they want more rules books. Old school gamers seem to want more comprehensive adventures than the light adventure modules currently being produced but some accounting chief or other in the big rpg companies is firmly convinced that adventures don't sell.

I tend to think that GDW did so well with 1st edition because they had a better understanding of their market and realized what rpg players wanted, so they made big adventure modules. These days it seems that the big players in the rpg field don't actually understand the market and regard rp gamers as a bunch of under-socializing teenagers who don't go outdoors.

[Legbreaker]

While the GDW modules do have their problems, overall I believe they are a good balance of adventure material mixed with background/sourcebook material.
I can't think of a single one that couldn't be used by a GM without having to use it as an adventure.
Take Last Submarine for example - lots of juicy goodness in there describing the situation which can be used as is, or ideas and situations transplanted into other locales.

Hmm, on second thought, the Return To Europe books didn't really add much to the background (excluding Bears den).

[Abbott Shaull]

Hmm, on second thought, the Return To Europe books didn't really add much to the background (excluding Bears den).

True lot of them didn't add much details. What they did show was how the landscape could change in year or so over time, such as Warsaw or Southern Poland. Especially if loose ends are left or other things happened during the original adventures.