OK so..anyone have any thoughts on what's different/worse/better between the two editions of T2000?

I'm somewhat conversant with 2nd (OK, actually with Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, which uses the 2E-based "House System") - not so much with 1st, though I do have a copy.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546759OK so..anyone have any thoughts on what's different/worse/better between the two editions of T2000?

Rules wise, 2 is probably a better system (although T2k 1.0 is a lot like Hero System - if you know it you know it and you can live with it warts and all).

Now for the "fluff" itself...

late 1e/early 2e modules are very badly thought out with serious consistency problems (in one module they'll list a unit as destroyed, and another will have that unit at the same calendar time as having xyz strength; they did this with a French division in Saudi Arabia or Iran in the RDF sourcebook, for example).

2e attempted to "fix" 1e by rather than saying "OK it's an alternate history that diverged from our own in 1985 which is why the cold war continued on, no Gorbachev, no Glasnost, etc." they tried to keep up with current events (2.2 got worse and T:2013 was...ugh, let's not even go there) and "patch" T2k so it "made sense", so in spite of the Cold War ending and the eastern bloc collapsing and much of it actually allying with NATO in the 1990s, they kept coming up with more and more absurd reasons why the Twilight War kicks off.

Now, to be fair to GDW, they kind of had to do that: the Cold War was ending and people were well and truly SICK of living with it and all it's ugliness for 40+ years at the time.  Saying "let's play a game where the cold war didn't end oh and there's been a global limited nuclear and conventional war" suddenly wasn't all that appealing when it seemed like war was pretty much over.

It's a bit more salable in these uncertain times, I think, but that's personal opinion.

What I would do is, if you wanted to play T2k as per the 1e boxed set:

Play the "fluff" out exactly as written.  Use Into The Howling Wilderness as a starting point, but seriously modify it, if the party goes home.  The original modules (Pirates of the Vistula, Free City of Krakow, Ruins of Warsaw, Going Home, King's Ransom, and parts of the RDF sourcebook are all great, as are The Last Sub modules), and use the 2.0 or 2.2 rules to play them with.

Thanks Dungeon Delver.
 
If I ever did run it (atm, just curious - lots of things lurking on the shelf - I mean, I do have some sort of militaristic friends who would probably enjoy it, though even though who knows what rules set we might end up using) I guess alternative history would work. Sort of wonder how much is stealable with some sort of revised/modernized (2012ish) world background, but I guess even all the hardware has changed since then (and I'd have people more familiar with guns than I looking at me funny, just as they do when they find tape decks in Gamma World these days).
 
I found a free guide to the modules on drivethru which listed the modules, with popuarity scores from a fairly sophisticated survey. It does looks like the 1E modules were alot more popular (i.e. hopefully good) than the 2E ones, as you say. The 'RDF Sourcebook' and 'Going Home' are apparently the most highly recommended books - and most of those you mentioned were up there - while the worst were apparently 'Rendezvous in Krakow' and 'Castle by the Sea'.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;5467602e attempted to "fix" 1e by rather than saying "OK it's an alternate history that diverged from our own in 1985 which is why the cold war continued on, no Gorbachev, no Glasnost, etc." they tried to keep up with current events (2.2 got worse and T:2013 was...ugh, let's not even go there) and "patch" T2k so it "made sense", so in spite of the Cold War ending and the eastern bloc collapsing and much of it actually allying with NATO in the 1990s, they kept coming up with more and more absurd reasons why the Twilight War kicks off.

2.2 was published in '93, and the deviation point there was the Soivet Coup in '91, where they decided that everything went differently after that. I thought that made more sense than constantly updating the timeline. Once they picked a real-world history cutoff point, it made more sense.

And T:2013 was made by a different company altogether, not GDW, just so that is clear.

Quote from: Rezendevous;5468082.2 was published in '93, and the deviation point there was the Soivet Coup in '91, where they decided that everything went differently after that. I thought that made more sense than constantly updating the timeline. Once they picked a real-world history cutoff point, it made more sense.

And T:2013 was made by a different company altogether, not GDW, just so that is clear.

Well, as I said I think they had a real-world influenced decision to make regarding how the future backstory would work, and again, people were glad the cold war and apparent threat of nuclear annihilation was over and not eager so much to continue to play "let's pretend" with it.

Now however, I think whomever picks up the license would be well served by going back to the 1.0 timeline and (again) saying "History diverts here".

Yes, Twilight:2013 was 93 Games take on things...not exactly my favorite version (the backstory - the Reflex System is actually pretty tight!)

I didn't like the GDW house-rules game system for TW2000, but I did like the game as a sourcebook for vehicles and weapons.  I was playing The Morrow Project at the time still.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;546952I didn't like the GDW house-rules game system for TW2000, but I did like the game as a sourcebook for vehicles and weapons.  I was playing The Morrow Project at the time still.

Morrow Project + Creepypasta + move the timeline back a little (parties wake up 50 years after, not 150 years) = GOOOOLD>

I never liked either, wasn't my kind of game.  But of course, it was much sillier to have the kind of militarywank it had AFTER the Berlin Wall fell.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;547285I never liked either, wasn't my kind of game.  But of course, it was much sillier to have the kind of militarywank it had AFTER the Berlin Wall fell.

That's the #1 barrier that keeps me from embracing Twilight: 2000.

I'm a 32-year-old with only distant memories of the Cold War. I want a gritty post-apoc game and I'd like it to be minimally plausible to my players in this time and day. Right now, even a grey goo nanotech-gone-wrong scenario feels more believable than old school East vs. West WWIII nuclear exchange.

And since this is not RPGnet, I think I can point out that I've considered reskinning the scenario with a highly placed cabal of crazed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists taking over Pakistan's stockpile, but to my untrained eye, the most likely outcome of that would be them proceeding to immediately surprise bomb India back to the Stone Age, followed by Israel, and/or China, and/or everyone else bombing them to hell and back. And I'd like the PCs to tread a ruined civilization a bit closer to home.

Maybe something like The Sum of All Fears (big money Nazi revivalists buying Soviet warheads and going out with a bang) could work too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;547285I never liked either, wasn't my kind of game.  But of course, it was much sillier to have the kind of militarywank it had AFTER the Berlin Wall fell.

Yep.  The ending of the Cold War messed up a lot of settings for RPGs.

Quote from: The Butcher;547299I'm a 32-year-old with only distant memories of the Cold War. I want a gritty post-apoc game and I'd like it to be minimally plausible to my players in this time and day. Right now, even a grey goo nanotech-gone-wrong scenario feels more believable than old school East vs. West WWIII nuclear exchange.

In Gene Wolfe's book "The Island of Doctor Death and Other Stories and Other Stories", there's a short called "Seven American Nights" about a Muslim visting Washington DC several years after the US was nuked.  I'd like to RPG in that.