Twilight:2000... tell me your likes and dislikes

[Calico_Jack73]

Last night I picked up my old copy (v2.0) of Twilight:2000 and I got all nostalgic about it. I forgot how easy the core resolution system was and how easy (at least that is the way I remember it) the combat system could be while still maintaining the illusion of realism. God, how I'd love to play this game again.

Tell me what you liked and disliked about Twilight:2000. I also understand there is a sequel, Twilight: 2013. Tell me what you think about it so far.

http://www.93gamesstudio.com/twilight2013/

 

[Vascant]

I always found it to "simple" but I did enjoy a lot of the flavor it had and converted the game mechanics over to Morrow Project

 

[Piratecat]

The year? 1991. I'd been really looking forward to playing. Then my GM turned out to be a gun fetishist. I just wanted something that went "bang" and did 2d6 damage; he spent literally two hours explaining to us what our weapon options were. We never actually started the game, and I've never had a chance to actually play it since.

But no, I'm not bitter.

 

[Treebore]

We just wrapped up a 8 week run of Twilight 2000 last night, with some of its 2E version adapted. We had a blast. Blew a lot of stuff up, had cool gun battles, etc...

I think there are things that can be done (and I bet likely were in later editions) to simplify character creation. I thought determining damage done to tanks, choppers, Humvees, etc... was a bit cumbersome, but it was cool to know you made its ammo detonate, or its fuel detonate, knocked out its radio, or its torque converter, etc... So I would like it if a simpler/faster way could be created, but if not I would prefer keeping that kind of resolution in the game.

My only other complaint (and I think/hope this was unique to the 1E) was that chances to hit dropped way to dramatically over longer distances, even for sharpshooters, using the proper rifle, with great scopes, and having all the time in the world to take the shot. Not sure how to address that, but I would like it to be.

Over all we had a great time and I would love to play it again.

 

[mmu1]

The problem with Twilight 2000 for me is the one that a native will always have when some well-meaning but ultimately clueless author decides to set a piece of fiction in your country or city. I just can't take it seriously, and all the mistakes, misspellings and cheesy attempts to use the "local color" make me cringe.

That, and it's one thing (for me, anyway) to play a fantasy game in which the bad guys invade your country and have to be fought off heroically (but you know that it's virtually impossible for something like that to happen) and another when foreign troops had in reality only stopped being garrisoned there less than twenty years ago.

I suppose I could have fun in a one-off session of blowing away Russian invaders, but in the long run... nah.

 

[Wik]

You know, I was so excited about the free RPG giveaway for T2K, and I really enjoyed the CharGen system. Some of it really confused me, though, and the sample adventure was just... awful.

I felt like I needed to be in the military to really enjoy the game. Though, to be honest, I'd play it in a heartbeat - just don't expect me to ever run it.

The "Cool Under Fire" concept was neat, but I don't know if I'd like it in actual play - even a relatively cool character would have to lose 1 action out of every 5, and I think that's kind of lame. To just sit there and have your character get edgy, while the guy that's totally cool under fire blasts stuff. And that's if you're both playing "Cool" characters.

If one character had a high rating, and another had a poor rating, it'd be awful. I could just imagine having to lose 3 out of every 5 actions (or whatever) while my teammate didn't have to lose any. I'd start to feel left out, pretty fast.

My other nitpick was that skills were too limited. I made a few characters that had most of the major skills. I'd prefer it if it really encouraged the "okay, I'm the mechanic, you're the doctor, and he's the food scrounger", and as it stands, the rules don't truly support that.

But the idea of the game is pretty cool, and I'd love to steal the idea for a d20 apocalypse game.

 

[Korgoth]

The "Cool Under Fire" concept was neat, but I don't know if I'd like it in actual play - even a relatively cool character would have to lose 1 action out of every 5, and I think that's kind of lame. To just sit there and have your character get edgy, while the guy that's totally cool under fire blasts stuff. And that's if you're both playing "Cool" characters.

If one character had a high rating, and another had a poor rating, it'd be awful. I could just imagine having to lose 3 out of every 5 actions (or whatever) while my teammate didn't have to lose any. I'd start to feel left out, pretty fast.

The nice thing about that comes when you compare it with something like Gurps. In Gurps, a combat takes about 4-7 seconds of game time and is characterized by people robotically placing 2 or 3 rounds in a foe per second... seeming like some combination of Chow Yun Fat, Neo from the Matrix and the Terminator. Nobody ever seems to lose so much as 1 second looking around, changing footing or deciding who to shoot. At least, that's how Gurps felt sometimes.

I like having a built in mechanic for causing inefficiency in firefights. I don't think that you'd always be perfectly aware of your surroundings and that your cognitive alacrity would be totally unfazed by all the lead flying through the air and the people running and shouting.