A new Twilight:2000... how would you do it?

[Calico_Jack73]

Fall of Man may be what you are looking for...

No offense, but Fall of Man doesn't sound like the type of game a die-hard TW2K fan would buy. Most of us die-hard TW2K fans want "gritty, real-world, excruciating detail based on real-world facts" in a remake of TW2K.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't give it a try as a replacement for Gamma World, though.

Couldn't agree more... I don't want mutants, aliens, or monsters in my T2K game. I want to start the game listening to "Paint it Black" and have a game where the PCs are behind enemy lines and have total freedom in deciding if they want to stay and fight the good fight or try to make the improbably trip across Europe and the Atlantic to get home. I want the PCs trying to decide if they REALLY need to use their last Dragon PIP anti-tank missile to take out the T-72 rumbling up the road or if they should try to hide or retreat. Supplies should always be an issue.

 

[3catcircus]

I haven't seen these rules - do you have a link to them please?

Mitch Berg's Twilight:2000/Merc:2000 Website

I agree on some points here - the GDW house system does its job brilliantly, and I really dislike the automatic fire rules in D20 Modern and Spycraft. TW2K end edition (and even better in 2.2 - which gave highly trained characters a slightly better chance than the totally random D6 from v2.0) autofire rules where very nice.

However, I didn't like the way the task system handled extremely hard tasks (ie x1/2 and x1/4), because it basically meant that a character needed 4 full skill points above another in order to have a better chance at completing an impossible task. When you look at something like an unexperienced character (skill level=0) and a fairly experienced character (skill level=3), I'd expect a bit of a better difference in the odds.

So I'd like to see a linear DC approach that D20 uses in my perfect v2.2 rewrite

I agree to the extent that extremely hard tasks were hard for everyone - but I don't necessarily know if a linear DC approach *isn't* being applied. The problem is really with the fact that you have to round down - better to round up when determining x1/2 and x1/4 chances to succeed.

I actually prefered the wound system used in 2300 AD - where each and every single hit that penetrated had the chance to kill you. You rolled for potential severity (modified by hit location), and then rolled for actual severity (based on damage).

Having said that, I do use a VP-per-location house rule in Spycraft. Armour only provides Damage Reduction (no modifier to Defence) on the locations is protects.

Any chance of seeing that particular mechanic? How does it differ from the idea of "Quick Kills" in TW2K, Dark Conspiracy and TNE? That is - if your roll succeeds, you can roll a second d20 - if this second roll is less than the damage rating of a weapon (i.e. roll less than a 3 when using an M16A2, which has a DAM rating of 3) and it results in an instant kill. How does it differ from a different (house rule?) method of assigning an Outstanding Success (succeed by more than 10) as a critical hit doing double damage?

I really preferred the 2.2 initiative rule over v2.0 - it seemed to have an awful lot more management.

The V2.2 initiative rules where similar to those in 2300AD as well.

Yes - they *are* much simply. However, I like the option of using either - and a v2.0 system results in a much faster, more furious firefight (even though the out-of-game paperwork may take longer).

This I don't agree with

There's nothing inherently wrong with the D20 game system that stops it doing Twilight 2000 properly.

I agree with you that it would NOT be D20 Modern (or indeed Spycraft) rules out-of-the-box. But a variant D20 game system would handle Twilight 2000 very well.

I too would *prefer* to see an improved v2.2 ruleset over D20, but I'd take a D20 based version if it was done well (which I'm afraid, I already dislike due to the decision to base the rules on 3 sets of books, and I don't agree with all the decisions they took in doing T20).

I based my statement solely on the fact that WOTC d20 is a skill/feat/class/level based system. I just can't see making prestige classes for "Ranger" or "USMC Sniper" or feats like "SERE School graduate" or "Naval Nuclear Reactor Operator" - And, to paraphrase someone on a TW2K message board - "Hearing someone describe their character as a Infantryman 3/Ranger 3 makes me shudder." The d20 mechanic itself (skill ranks + bonus vs. DC) works just fine. It is the underlying class/level/feat system that would, I think, ruin a TW2K remake.

I GC a Shadowforce Archer Spycraft campaign - d20 works well for this because of the campaign setting (psionics, The Fringe, Mystics, etc.) I wonder how realistic it would end up being if I ran a straight campaign, or used The 60's book?

Bottom line for me is - stick with a purely skills based system. You'd have to have military or civilian ranks that do *not* act like levels (how many worthless senior NCOs or managers have you had to deal with in civilian or military life?) to preserve the feel of the game.

 

[drnuncheon]

That said, what game system and combination of books would you suggest to recreate the setting. It's got to have rules for modern military weapons and vehicles as well as a relatively realistic combat system.

Gotta give the nod to GURPS here, then. Between Vehicles, the Vehicle Compendiums, High-Tech, Special Ops, and all the other books out there, chances are high that you'll have just what you need (and with Vehicles, if you don't have it, you can build it.)

Combat is so realistic that my players complained. Not because it took a long time, but because they couldn't pull movie stunts like hitting distant targets in poor lighting without aiming. There's a lot of different optional rules that you can use to make it even more so.

This is all based on 3rd ed GURPS - I haven't been keeping up with the new edition news.

J

 

[3catcircus]

Gotta give the nod to GURPS here, then. Between Vehicles, the Vehicle Compendiums, High-Tech, Special Ops, and all the other books out there, chances are high that you'll have just what you need (and with Vehicles, if you don't have it, you can build it.)

Combat is so realistic that my players complained. Not because it took a long time, but because they couldn't pull movie stunts like hitting distant targets in poor lighting without aiming. There's a lot of different optional rules that you can use to make it even more so.

This is all based on 3rd ed GURPS - I haven't been keeping up with the new edition news.

J

The only problem I see with using GURPS is the same problem that TW2K(d20) will be - you gotta buy multiple books to play the game. For all previous editions of TW2K - the only thing you *needed* to play the game was the basic rule set. The weapons and vehicle guides were certainly nice add-ons - but weren't needed since the basic rules had a lot of stuff in them already.

For GURPS - you'd need the basic rules, plus the TW2K book, plus any additional weapon or vehicle books they would (inevitably) put out.

 

[DMScott]

The QLI folks seem to mostly cruise the Citizens of the Imperium boards, interested folks might have more luck getting solid info there:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi

One of the boards is dedicated to Twilight: 2000.

 

[dagger]

Im sure some of the non d20 systems would work very well for a TW2020 remake, but I think using a d20 variant of some kind would be better for introducing new players to TW2000.

 

[Goodsport]

Regardless of what any new incarnation of Twilight: 2000 looks like, it just won't be the same without its original designers such as Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman, Timothy B. Brown and the rest of the GDW staff.


-G

 

[Ranger REG]

This is really, really disappointing. And probably means the Twilight 2020 sourcebook will be the first Twilight 2000 product I won't buy (across all 3 editions - plus the reprint - so I love TW2K .

I find it incredible that they are expecting us to buy (and read, and reference, and look-up) 3 core rule books:

A D20 Core Rule book
T20 Traveller
T20 Twilight

to play the game. They are actively limiting their market - there's a big crowd out there that has D20 Modern, but not T20 Traveller. And how do they intend to attract new players to TW2K if they are expected to start with 2 other books (I mean new RPG players - no one in their right mind is going to start learning to play RPGs with a game that requires 3 books from different genres).

I already own T20 Traveller and D20 (lots of Core Rule Books - for DnD, D20 Modern and Star Wars), but I want my rules for Twilight in 1 book - the thing that annoyed me most about Spycraft was that it was D20 System instead of just OGL.

I hate having to have multiple books lying around for my core rules. At the very least, they should have done a D20 Twilight with the T20 rules within.

Looking up rules across 3 books, trying to determine which are superceeded in later books, which rule is in which book etc is a right pain.

Well, this is quite a dilemma.

For anyone who is already an owner of the $45 T20, buying yet another $45 book with all the rules material rehashed from T20 plus a few extras -- tailored for Twilight: 2000 setting -- is a waste of money.

For anyone who is not an owner of T20, but wants to get into d20 Twilight: 2000 supplement (which will cost less than $45) will have to buy the required two books to play.

Personally, I don't mind d20 Twilight: 2000 being a complete main rulebook that requires any one of WotC's core game books. I'll probably grin and bear it while I drop $45 for such a printed product, but I'm guessing Quiklink want to cater to their only established fanbase (owners of T20) rather than risk finding a new fanbase to push their wares.

 

[Ranger REG]

Regardless of what any new incarnation of Twilight: 2000 looks like, it just won't be the same without its original designers such as Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman, Timothy B. Brown and the rest of the GDW staff.

Well, they could try to contract them the same way they got Dougherty onboard for T20. That assumes those designers WANT to do a d20 version and they're not busy.

But for now, there is a demand, and as a business, Quiklink can't afford to ignore the potential revenue to keep them in business.

 

[drnuncheon]

For all previous editions of TW2K - the only thing you *needed* to play the game was the basic rule set. The weapons and vehicle guides were certainly nice add-ons - but weren't needed since the basic rules had a lot of stuff in them already.

For GURPS - you'd need the basic rules, plus the TW2K book, plus any additional weapon or vehicle books they would (inevitably) put out.

Er...how would you need that stuff in GURPS but not in T2K? The 3e GURPS book has a reasonable assortment of weapons in it, including what I would think would be the 'most common' modern ones. (I don't recall what it's got vehicle-wise.)

Sure, it'd be better with all the other books. But fact is, you don't need GURPS Vehicles to stat up a real tank - you need the Basic Set and Jane's. It goes 30 mph for this long on this many gallons of gas...really all you need is an estimate of the DR.