twilight2000-digest Monday, August 28 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 175 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: About horses and mules RE: Lack of T2K at GenCon Re: About horses and mules Re: unidentified amphibian LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) Re: LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) Re: LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) Colt M-4 Stats Re: Colt M-4 Stats Gaming in Texas Missile Defense--Technical Note for Those Interested Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems an alternate rules system (long) Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems Twilight:2000 Discussion Thread T2K Game Settings Re: T2K Game Settings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:51:41 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: About horses and mules At 06:29 PM 8/15/00 -0700, Andrew Kolb wrote: >Naturally my knowledge is >limited to mules bred in the USA but I don’t see any reason for >European mules to be bred smaller than horses. Wouldn't they naturally be smaller, since donkeys are smaller than horses? BTW, you might want to turn of HTML in your mailer program, especially since you're not really making use of its features. HTML simply won't work with some mailers (or maybe some of its features don't work, as with my mailer), and other have trouble quoting it (this is true of mine). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:54:27 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Lack of T2K at GenCon At 08:47 PM 8/15/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >> From: Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) >> >> So, why is it that a game published by a well-known company that had a lot >> of stuff put out for it is played by such a seemingly small amount of >> people? Yes, it is out of print, but that doesn't stop a lot of other >> games from getting more attention. Any thoughts on this? > >T2K is the only role playing game I've ever played that's only primary >fantasy element is a few economic facts and a few foreign policy decisions >by key countries. > I think one big turn-off is that nowadays the TW2K timeline is alternate history rather than science-fiction--there's never been much interest in alternate history in gaming or in fiction. Moreover, even if you wanted to rewrite the timeline, post-holocaust games don't have the same resonance in people's psyches after the end of the Cold War. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:49:08 -0700 From: "Andrew Kolb" Subject: Re: About horses and mules - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:04 PM Subject: Re: About horses and mules Sorry I have recently reinstalled windoze and forgot to switch to plain text. Not all donkeys are smaller than horses and as the horses in the game are riding horses I am assuming along the lines of Arabians or quarter horses that draft animals are bigger. All of the mules I have seen, while they don't rival the size of Belgians, Clydesdales or Percherons , are bigger than the riding horses. There is a donkey in Spain that is called the Mammoth and is as big as a Clydesdale, but that's not the standard by any means. I live in Southern Iowa and what I hear the most is old people talking about "those big Missouri mules" so maybe I am totally wrong and they just have a higher percentage of big mules around this area. Of course we all know what it means to "assume" Andrew >Wouldn't they naturally be smaller, since donkeys are smaller than horses? > >BTW, you might want to turn of HTML in your mailer program, especially >since you're not really making use of its features. HTML simply won't work >with some mailers (or maybe some of its features don't work, as with my >mailer), and other have trouble quoting it (this is true of mine). > >Scott Orr >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:28:23 EDT From: Damage169@cs.com Subject: Re: unidentified amphibian Daniel G writes: > Can anyone identify this craft? > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/larc-navy673.jpg > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/larc-navy673-2.jpg > > The site identifies it as a LARC-60, but it isn't. I was thinking it would > be fun in twilight. Amphibious and plenty of room for guns. What better > combo could there be? > > Thanks, > Daniel Based on what little I can see, it looks like a DUKW amphibious personnel carrier (you can just see the front wheel-well behind the bow wake). I don't have the stats for this type of vehicle, but it was either four or six wheeled (two or three axles), with a separate propeller propulsion system for water travel. It was developed for use during W.W.II, but was in National Guard armories for a considerable period of time after that. The best instance I can recall of its use in popular film was in the later part of "Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise" where it was even armed with a 106 mm recoilless rifle (not used in the film, mores the pity). Doug G *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:48:49 GMT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) >From: Damage169@cs.com > >Daniel G writes: > > > Can anyone identify this craft? > > > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/larc-navy673.jpg > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/larc-navy673-2.jpg > > > > The site identifies it as a LARC-60, but it isn't. I was thinking it >would > > be fun in twilight. Amphibious and plenty of room for guns. What better > > combo could there be? > >Based on what little I can see, it looks like a DUKW amphibious personnel >carrier (you can just see the front wheel-well behind the bow wake). I >don't >have the stats for this type of vehicle, but it was either four or six >wheeled (two or three axles), with a separate propeller propulsion system >for >water travel. It was developed for use during W.W.II, but was in National >Guard armories for a considerable period of time after that. The best >instance I can recall of its use in popular film was in the later part of >"Revenge of the Nerds 2: Nerds in Paradise" where it was even armed with a >106 mm recoilless rifle (not used in the film, mores the pity). It looks a lot like the LARC-5, introduced in 1960, to replace the DUKW. Some pertinant numbers: Length: 10.66m Width: 3.14m Weight: 9.5 tonnes Crew: 3 Power: diesel Payload: 4.54 tonnes or 20 troops Speed: land 48 km/h, water 16 km/h Range: land 400 km, water 60 km (source The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles, Hogg and Weeks) A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope http://www.geocities.com/copeab ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:04:10 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) Thanks Brandon, Does anyone know where I could get more info? - -Daniel >(snip) >It looks a lot like the LARC-5, introduced in 1960, to replace the DUKW. >Some pertinant numbers: > >Length: 10.66m >Width: 3.14m >Weight: 9.5 tonnes >Crew: 3 >Power: diesel >Payload: 4.54 tonnes or 20 troops >Speed: land 48 km/h, water 16 km/h >Range: land 400 km, water 60 km > >(source The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles, Hogg and Weeks) > > >A generous and sadistic GM, >Brandon Cope > >http://www.geocities.com/copeab > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:26:37 GMT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: LARC-5? (Re: unidentified amphibian) >From: "Daniel G" > >Thanks Brandon, >Does anyone know where I could get more info? >-Daniel I would go to http://www.google.com and do a search on "LARC-5" A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope http://www.geocities.com/copeab ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 07:49:16 EDT From: Corkman321@aol.com Subject: Colt M-4 Stats Could anyone give me any ideas on where to find some fairly accurate stats for the Colt M-4 or any of it's variants? I thought there was an article in the Challenge magazines but, cannot seem to locate the damn thing. I thought it was in an issue where there was a buttload of the weapons being tested for the OICW program. Any help is appreciated, thanks. JohnO. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:33:05 +0300 From: "Merondil Twiceborn" Subject: Re: Colt M-4 Stats John, if you meant the game stats then try Loonz's site... at http://t2k.findhere.com/ If you didn't then I don't know... - -Eero Haapamäki > Could anyone give me any ideas on where to find some fairly > accurate stats for the Colt M-4 or any of it's variants? I thought > there was an article in the Challenge magazines but, cannot seem to > locate the damn thing. I thought it was in an issue where there was > a buttload of the weapons being tested for the OICW program. > Any help is appreciated, thanks. > > > JohnO. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:21:19 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Gaming in Texas Anyone on this list happen to live in the Austin Texas area? If so, give me a yell. I'm trying to get a group together. - -Rob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 21:47:00 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Missile Defense--Technical Note for Those Interested First, this isn't meant to start a discussion, so please don't reply unless you can add technical info. This is merely an FYI for people who may have followed the missile defense thread a couple of months ago. I'm sending it mainly because the Russian plan for a join missile defense appears to be rather less than I made it out to be in that thread. At the time, I didn't know the details of the Russian missile defense proposal, because, though I normally read news from Russia and Eastern Europe, I've been a couple of months behind in reading Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's daily updates from the area (check out their site at http://www.rferl.org for good current info on this and other topics). To sum up, the Russian proposal doesn't entirely make sense. President Vladimir Putin has stated that it would be "non-strategic" (it's not clear what he means by this), would cover all of Europe, and would target missiles in the boost phase rather than in space, and would not be space-based (the idea here being that it would therefore only target missiles from "rogue states" and not those from Russia or China or the other established nuclear powers--this may be what's meant by non-strategic). I'm not clear on how a boost-phase-interception system that's not space-based could possible cover all of Europe, and I'm even less clear on why it would cover Europe but not the U.S. (presuming both are threatened by the same "rogue states"); this would also seem to involve identifying specific threatening states and setting up missiles close enough to their boundaries to accomplish the boost-phase interception, and I'm not clear on how the identification of these states would be accomplished, or how Russia can be sure that ABM's can be sited close enough. Another problem is that missiles that could, for instance, intercept ICBM's from Korea would be in range to intercept many from China or Russia as well, which may indicate that Russia is declaring North Korea not to be a threat (at least not to Russia and the rest of Europe). It's also not at all clear how Russia sees a proposal that protects only Europe, and not the U.S., as being something the U.S. might sign on to. However, this may be a clue to the "non-strategic" part--it may be that Russia envisions the primary threat as being from medium-range (hence "non-strategic") missile, which can't reach the U.S. from anywhere outside North America. The proposed system would be jointly funded by Russia and other European countries, and would use Russian equipment, including the existing S-300 and S-500 (?--I think it was 500, but I don't know AAM systems) systems, presumably modified for the task. As another poster pointed out in the earlier thread, these AAM's are fairly short-ranged systems, probably roughly comparable to the U.S. Patriot (so maybe this is something like the U.S.'s Theater Missile Defense plan?). That's all I know--I would expect there's a detailed analysis of all this out there somewhere, but I haven't seen and I don't have the time and interest to look for it; I'd certaily welcome someone else finding it, though. Europe has respondedly reasonably positively to this proposal, but they seem to want more details, and I expect their response is more a signal of their displeasure with the U.S. plan rather than their reaction to the Russian plan in and of itself. Although the details aren't clear, it does appear in any case that it's probable that this plan doesn't address all of the threats the U.S. hopes to address with its plan; therefore, it's not surprising to learn that the Clinton Administration, while expressing interest in the plan (regarding it as a bargaining position, really), has been lukewarm to it. I'll forward more info as I come across it as I catch up on my reading. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:42:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) Subject: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? T.P.M. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Whiz=20Bang?= Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems - --- Timothy P Moerke wrote: > I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different > game mechanics system > for T:2K other than the one in the game. well Timothy, I actually run a rules system which i worked out with a friend of mine a couple of years ago. it's d10/d100 based, and seems to work quite well. i did post a more thorough description of it a few months ago, but if there's interest i can repost. i agree that the t2k system is quite clumsy, and that's the major reason we developed our own system. of course, much of the t2k rules are very good, and i must admit a lot of the time when we didn't have a rule for something we'd go back to the 2.2 book and say, "okay, this is how gdw did it, now how do we adapt that to our system." : ) but the main things we did rather differently were attributes, skills, health and direct combat mechanics. and then the rest of the changes were mostly aesthetic, that is, changing things to d10/d100 base. so yeah, if you're interested, i can dig out the old post and resend it. Michael Cook. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail ­ Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:28:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems > so yeah, if you're interested, i can dig out the old > post and resend it. > > Michael Cook. Yes, I'd be very interested in that. Thanks! T.P.M. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:28:33 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems >I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system >for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so >clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other >systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could >work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? > >T.P.M. I use a Cyberpunk conversion, it seems to work pretty well although it's somewhat lethal. It can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/7031/CP-T2K.html I'm still updating it as time goes by, so it's a work in progress. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: an alternate rules system (long) for timothy and anyone else that's interested: I GM a gaming group that's played the t2k system in the past but that now employs our own house rules system. our system is based entirely on ten sided and percentile dice. Character attributes are handled quite differently from t2k, or most other systems for that matter. Attributes are organized under two general Stats, Physical and Mental. each are rolled using 3d10. from there, each is broken into two SubStats: Strength and Agility for Physical, and Intelligence and Wit for Mental. The points in each Stat are distributed into its SubStats by the player. No substat may have more than 2/3 the total points available, and each substat must have atleast 1 point. Once the points are distributed, these substats can be converted to percentile by multiplying by 5. if a situation just calls for the substat (ie. STR) it means the non-percentile substat. otherwise it will ask for the percentile substat (ie. %STR). There are also two independently-rolled substats: Endurance (a physical substat) and Duress (mental). These are percentile stats from the beginning, and are rolled using 5d6 x 3 (one of the only non-d10 rolls in the game). These are then modified based on the character's Physical or Mental stat: -3% per point under 5 or +3% per point above 25. Endurance is also negatively effected by the character's build: -15% if overweight or -40% if obese. none of these modifiers can drop Endurance or Duress below 5%. there are three other important numbers: AIM, MAIM and INIT. AIM is used for firearms combat, MAIM for melee combat, and INIT for increasing the speed of an action. A character's AIM is the average of their percentile Agility and their percentile Intelligence. A character's MAIM is the average of their percentile Strength and their percentile Agility. When a character fires a gun at a target, the character's AIM is modified for range, movement, weapon, any cover the target has, the current facing of the target, and, if firing more than one shot, recoil. this yields a to-hit number. if the shot is an aimed shot, a second to-hit number is also used, this one also penalized to varying degrees depending on the location being aimed at. the player then rolls percentile dice to determine if they hit. in the case of an aimed shot, if the roll makes both to-hit numbers, then the aimed shot is successful. if it passes the unaimed to-hit, but doesn't pass the aimed to-hit, then it will likely still hit the target, but a scatter diagram and a d10 roll are used to determine where. this means that the shot can still miss if the target is in profile and the bullet misses to the wrong sector. If the shot wasn't an aimed one, then a d100 roll is made using a table of hit locations. we get fairly specific here, with possible locations such as the elbow, calf or foot. leg and arm locations are divided into left and right as well. depending on the location, the target will also automatically have to make some sort of check (head:consciousness check, any arm location:drop check, any leg location:stumble check). we don't actually roll damage in the t2k way. we haven't bothered with muzzle energy variations between individual guns, because we haven't found it to be worth the trouble to do the work involved in producing modified damage figures for every single gun in the game (since we have different health point and damage systems than t2k, or rolemaster for that matter -- rolemaster's Weapons Law: Firearms is quite a good resource for rpg-usable weapons info -- we can't just borrow the figures from those games). instead, we roll for hit severity (graze/light/medium/severe). each size of ammunition has a health points of damage figure for each of these four severity levels, and once the severity roll has been made (it's a d10 roll) damage is applied. obviously, armour and strong cover will reduce and/or absorb the hit's severity level. the bullet may still penetrate at a reduced severity if the armor/cover isn't strong enough. i'd discuss how we handle armor/cover, but i'll save that for another day i think (especially considering i'm about to overhaul our rules for this). the severity of the hit also causes losses of agility, strength and endurance, may cause further drop/stumble/consciousness checks (at a penalty), affects the rate at which the wound bleeds, and causes automatic death in the case of a severe hit to the head (in most cases the damage from a severe hit, and in many cases even a medium hit, to the head would kill the character anyway). as far as the lethalness of damage is concerned. Head: severe hit - causes death. medium hit - knocks character unconscious. damage maybe sufficient to kill. light hit - stunned for minimum 30 seconds. damage maybe sufficient to kill, especially if the character has taken previous damage to their head. consciousness check. Torso: severe hit - automatic collapse. consciousness check. medium hit - collapse check. agility/strength/endurance -5 light hit - collapse check. agility/strength/endurance - -1 Arm: severe hit - automatic drop of anything held. arm is useless for a number of cycles equal to the damage sustained. medium hit - drop check at penalty. arm is numb (agility/strength penalty on actions involving this arm) for 5 cycles (2.5 minutes) light hit - drop check. arm is numb (agility penalty...) for 1 cycle (30 seconds) graze - drop check at bonus. Leg: severe hit - automatic stumble. leg is useless for a number of cycles equal to the damage sustained. medium hit - stumble check at penalty. leg is numb (agility/strength -5 for movement and leg-related checks) for 5 cycles. light hit - stumble check. leg is numb for one cycle. i'll also roll for the chance of a critical hit (damage to major ligaments, major muscle tissue damage, bone breakage, etc.) if i feel it's warranted. Initiative (INIT) is a percentile stat calculated as (AGL + WIT). with INIT, a player can attempt to increase the speed of a non-mechanical action their character is performing (ie. climbing a wall, defusing a bomb, repairing something, etc.) If the player successfully rolls their Initiative or lower, the time necessary for the operation is halved. i hope this has made some sense. i know it pretty intimately, so i'm not sure if i was clear enough or not. there's lots of other things that i would like to discuss, but this e-mail is quite long as it is. it's not a perfect system, but i do find it easier to run than t2k, which makes my job more enjoyable. whether that ease of use is actually related to the mechanics themselves or just the fact that i helped build them, and thus understand them really well, is open to interpretation. if people are still interested, i'll post some more of the different ways we do things soon. Michael Cook __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail ­ Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:40:22 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems At 09:42 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) wrote: >I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system >for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so >clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other >systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could >work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? > I've heard that a lot of people use GURPS--the skill system is nice, and you can use GURPS Vehicles to define new equipment (though a book like Guns, Guns, Guns would be nice for the firearms), but GURPS combat is rather slow (there are variants for speeding this up though, esp. for hand-to-hand combat). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:45:49 EDT From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems In a message dated 8/21/00 10:50:08 AM, moer0019@tc.umn.edu writes: << I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? >> I used to use my own modified version of the v2.0 rules, but recently I've adapted WoTC's Alternity system. It is not as weapon serious, but I think it runs more smoothly. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:43:41 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems "Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke)" wrote: > I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system > for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so > clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other > systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could > work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? > I have used, successfully, GURPS. The character design process is more well rounded. The combat system can be quick and easy, if you use the basic stuff, or can get more detailed if you like. GURPS Vehicles allows for good vehicle stuff and you can put together weapons not stated out. Also there are a LOT of gearheads, one in particular, how is an absolute gun nut who has done some serious research into all sorts of firearms. He posts to GURPSnet all the time, a mailing list for GURPS, and seems to emphasize modern weapons. You can download the "lite" rules for free, it's PDF. The sight: http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/ - -- Craig S. Gulledge "If you hear a redneck exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" Stay out of his way. These are likely the last words he will ever say." - - Rule #8 from "Advice for Moving to Texas"- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:38:00 -0400 From: "Clayton A. Oliver" Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems At 09:42 AM 08/21/2000 -0500, Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) wrote: >I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system >for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so >clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other >systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could >work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? I've looked at Cyberpunk 2020 and Millennium's Edge; both have lethal combat systems with plenty of crunch, and are at least somewhat genre-appropriate in their mechanics. White Wolf's Storyteller System (Vampire et al) is another fast-moving option, albeit one that's a bit light on technical material. This may change, though, once World of Darkness: Armory comes out next year. - - C. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton A. Oliver bad_karma@mindspring.com WWGS freelance hack http://www.mindspring.com/~bad_karma/ "Cows are better to hit than deer because there's more give to them." - Matt Davis on vehicle-livestock collisions *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:39:25 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems At 09:42 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Timothy Moerke wrote: >I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system >for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so >clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other >systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could >work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? I used to play a lot of Advanced Recon back in the late '80's, but the best results I ever got was using the Twilight:2000 to Hero System conversion found in the back of Hero Games' "Danger International." Awesomely detailed character generation (if you dig that kind of thing -- package deals, disadvantages, perks, contacts, favors and such) and pretty quick and lethal combat (if you use all the optional rules, i.e. cover, knockdown, bleeding, etc). BTRC's "More Guns" supplement provides a whole raft of direct Hero System conversions for most small arms & ammo of the 20th and early 21st centuries. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:41:47 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternate Game Mechanics Systems At 07:39 PM 8/21/00 -0700, Snake Eyes wrote: >At 09:42 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Timothy Moerke wrote: > >>I was wondering if anyone out there uses a different game mechanics system >>for T:2K other than the one in the game. T:2K's system just seems so >>clunky and awkward when it comes to combat. I've been examining other >>systems to see which ones might work...Shadowrun's looks like it could >>work, and Recon's might too with a bit of tweaking. What do you guys use? > >I used to play a lot of Advanced Recon back in the late '80's, but the best >results I ever got was using the Twilight:2000 to Hero System conversion >found in the back of Hero Games' "Danger International." Awesomely >detailed character generation (if you dig that kind of thing -- package >deals, disadvantages, perks, contacts, favors and such) and pretty quick >and lethal combat (if you use all the optional rules, i.e. cover, >knockdown, bleeding, etc). > >BTRC's "More Guns" supplement provides a whole raft of direct Hero System >conversions for most small arms & ammo of the 20th and early 21st centuries. > I believe that's the sequel to the Guns, Guns, Guns I mentioned earlier. They actually have stats for several systems, including GURPS. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:02:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) Subject: Twilight:2000 Discussion Thread When I was at rpg.net the other day, I came across an interesting thread in the forums regarding T:2K. If you want to check it out, go to www.rpg.net and click on the "rpgnet forum" link on the right side of the page. You may have to select "view older messages" for it to show up. It's a good discussion...14 posts last time I checked. And rpg.net is always a good site, though with too few T:2K players. :) T.P.M. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:55:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke) Subject: T2K Game Settings Has anyone tried running a T2K game set in the future? I think it would be interesting to see what happens to post-WW3 Earth far down the road. A lot could change in 50 years, 100 years, or even farther into the future. The world might become more primitive...or it may rebuild itself instead. This kind of game could go in a lot of directions and has a ton of potential. T.P.M. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:22:15 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: T2K Game Settings This is basically what the game 2300:AD was about. It takes events from the twilight war on up to the year 2300. "Timothy P Moerke (Timothy Moerke)" wrote: > Has anyone tried running a T2K game set in the future? I think it would > be interesting to see what happens to post-WW3 Earth far down the road. A > lot could change in 50 years, 100 years, or even farther into the future. > The world might become more primitive...or it may rebuild itself instead. > This kind of game could go in a lot of directions and has a ton of > potential. > > T.P.M. > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #175 *************************************