Twilight: 2000

[aspqrz]

T:2013 did a much better job of providing for a range of character backgrounds, and provided a much more comprehensive coverage of natural hazards and rebuilding/civilian type activities (and took >300 pages to do it, including equipment lists).

And, for ghu's sake, get someone who actually has a clew about, oh, international politics, economics, military strategy, psychology, history and the like to write the "historical" background rather than the "hysterically stupidly unbelievable" effort presented in T:2013!

:shock:

Phil

 

[Phil Smith]

I didn't say it was right, just that it was there :lol:

 

[aspqrz]

I didn't say it was right, just that it was there :lol:

And I bought it anyway ... which says that either I am either ...

a) completely clewless :shock:

or

b) a fan 8)

or, possibly ...

c) a fanboy :?

or, worst of all ...

d) a clewless fanboy :wink:

Take your pick :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

'Cause it certainly sucked bigtime (the background) and the game system was a mix of far too simplified (or simplistic) and far too complex for actual game use (IMHO )

So, probably (b)

Phil

 

[Zaskar24]

I voted 2.2 since it was the last version that I played though I did start with 1.0 in the mid 80s. I also like the character generation from this version the most though 1.0 was pretty good as well. My main issue with the current version of Traveller character generation is the lack of skills the characters get. Though I know many do house rule it.

I also wouldn't mind seeing a setting 10-20 years from now with current and slightly more advanced technologies available. Okay, I want a Ghost in the Shell style setting to play in without elves or magic.

 

[tarkhan bey]

I have always loved TW2K. Right from 1st Ed when we played 'Escape from Kalisz', 'Free City of Krakow' and 'Pirates of the Vistula' in rapid succession. I always thought that one of its strengths was that there was so much high quality support for it.
The best ever games we played were 'The Last Submarine 'trilogy though. We had a new GM join the group who had done quite a bit of time in the army and brought a lot of his savvy into the game. Unfortunately, he no longer games with us and we have lost touch but there you go.
Since that time, my character 'Major John F Trask' has haunted my roleplaying career. His modus operandi was survival at all costs and he quite often came through entire scenarios unscathed. The term 'Trask like' has been leveled at me several times since and it implies the ability to let others soak up the sh*t and then save the day and snaffle up the glory. Mostly, the connatations are negative though. :lol:
A really good trick we learned from that ex army GM was to check your firing mechanism every single time you go on a mission. The dirty barsteward sent us up against a marauder gang only to discover that a traitor in our midst had removed the firing pins from our long arms, just as all hell was about to break loose. :shock:
I would love to see this done by mongoose, especially with a more fully developed UK background.
Absolutely no interest in a Mongoose produced mini's version though. We used Modern mini's using the rules as they were and it went fine. Dozens of companies make any type of troop or vehicle in almost any scale required.

 

[Phil Smith]

Agreed - lot's of suitable miniatures already available for contemporary military figures and vehicles, no point in Mongoose developing their own line.
(Though just to destroy my own arguement, I seem to recall the Grenadier figure range for T:2k included Polish cavalry which I suspect would not have been available from any of the 'historical' figure producers).

 

[tarkhan bey]

We used WWII Polish cavalry.