• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

d20 2300AD ?!

All I said was that T20 wasn't a rehash of Classic Traveller
.
By putting that setting over a 100 years in the past, and several sectors away, they had the ability to introduce new things to the setting without obviating all the stuff previously written.

I think 2300 needs the same thing. However, explored space isn't big enough to move the setting, and the 2200 timeline, while interesting, is also a known commodity. For CT players used to the Marches of 1107, the Gateway Domain of 1000 is a effectively a different universe, but with some similar assumptions. So the only alternative is to advance the timeline, and make some changes to the setting.

All this in the name of adding value to the game. The old-timers would want something extra for their money, as they already likely have the 2300 rules and supplements, or will when the reprints come out. The newcomers would want something new, and it likely wouldn't matter to them anyways.

I picked 20 years for a couple of reason, one of which was the 20 (as in D20) number, to further identify the game and setting. 20 years also allows enough time for new things to happen, particularily in the political arena, and gives time for the new regions of exploration to be opened up.

As for the Kafers, well, I like them, but they really don't have a great deal of depth as a race. Once you've figured out the whole violence-intelligence thing, it just turns them into another race of bugs...

Maybe Pentapod factions would make a better "hostile" alien, hostile because humans have no clue as to their true purpose.
 
Originally posted by Gallowglass:
Originally posted by kafka47:
[qb] yesterday. And if I'm honest, Andy Slack's timeline (that melds the 2300AD and OTU universes) is a cracking setting in it's own right.
You wouldn't happen to know where I could see a copy of Andy Slack's work, as I would like to compare it to my modification. Afterall, I am the real heretic, I don't want to modify the 2300AD universe, as much as I want to modify the Official Traveller Universe to make it more belivable (if such a term can be applied to a SFRPG).
 
Originally posted by kafka47:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gallowglass:
Originally posted by kafka47:
[qb] yesterday. And if I'm honest, Andy Slack's timeline (that melds the 2300AD and OTU universes) is a cracking setting in it's own right.
You wouldn't happen to know where I could see a copy of Andy Slack's work, as I would like to compare it to my modification. Afterall, I am the real heretic, I don't want to modify the 2300AD universe, as much as I want to modify the Official Traveller Universe to make it more belivable (if such a term can be applied to a SFRPG).
</font>
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/2303/gold/23002350.htm

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/2303/gold/23503000.htm

Above are the specific timeline articles, hosted at Pentapod's, one of if not THE resource for 2300 on the web.

Mr Slack has recently tweaked together his 2300 articles in a pdf at his own site as well:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andyslack/pdf/2300ad.pdf

Alas, RealWorldTM prevents him from taking up the challenge of d20 2300AD (or so he said on the 2300AD list recently), as he remains one of the best SF rpg writers this side of the pond...
 
On the subject of future history,

Times Online,April 20, 2003
EU gang of four agree to form new defence force
From Rory Watson in Brussels and Rosemary Bennett in Moscow

FRANCE and Germany agreed yesterday on a new defence arm that will enable the EU to carry out military operations independent of Nato.
Just as Tony Blair was making clear his opposition to any move that could undermine Nato, the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg decided at a summit in Brussels to set up a “multi- national deployable force headquarters” for non-Nato operations.

As he flew to Moscow to see President Putin, Mr Blair said that he hoped that “people realised the only basis upon which European defence could go forward is if it is fully compatible with our membership of Nato”. He landed to hear that the EU’s four leading opponents of the war with Iraq had already taken the first steps towards a defence policy that critics will see as a threat to Nato.

They hope that other EU members will rally behind the new policy. It aims increasingly to integrate national defence strategies and to establish a multinational force headquarters on the outskirts of Brussels next year to plan and conduct EU-led operations.

British officials with Mr Blair were “baffled” by the news from Brussels but wanted to see the details before making a full response.
Originally posted by Uncle Bob, April 15, 2002 on the Tw2K forum:
2005 US moves NATO troops to new bases in Poland and Hungary. The new labour government in Britain mothballs their "boomers".
2008 New French government is elected. Heavy handed policies immediately alienate the European Union members of South and East Europe by saying that you can't be a member of the EU and NATO.
2010 Civil War breaks out in the European Union. Former Warsaw Pact states in South and East Europe are fighting for their rights as free and independant countries to associate with who they please, France, Belgium and Germany are fighting to preseve the Union. Germany, Poland and the Czech republic is the battleground.

Remember, the American forces are small and isolated and the French have the only nukes...

Until the Russians take a hand, and they will be on the Franco-German side. At first.
...
It is cleverer than that: they invited everyone to join an economic union, and next they tell them who is really in charge.

Chirac tipped his hand prematurely when he blasted the East European nations. They are suspicious of him now and the plan has been set back for a couple of years.
Paranoia or prescience? It works, either way. I just wish I were wrong.
 
Uncle Bob,

I checked that link out, and the ones connected to it. It does look genuinely scary if the world chooses to go for coalitions of like-minded nations, rather than broader defense networks. But then again, that is precisely what the USA, UK and Australia have done in Iraq (a move which I fully support BTW).

I hope the French overplay the whole thing and have everyone stop playing with them for a while. It does seem that Germany is making moves to water this whole thing down, and that the easterern European states won't have a bar of it.
 
Alliances are allways about common interest. What disturbs me is that the French appear to have an agenda which has little to do with common interests and more to do with Napoleonic fantasies.

The current German government is obsessed with The American Threat, and they appear to be interpreting French chauvanism as a similar brand of anti-americanism.
 
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Alliances are allways about common interest. What disturbs me is that the French appear to have an agenda which has little to do with common interests and more to do with Napoleonic fantasies.

The current German government is obsessed with The American Threat, and they appear to be interpreting French chauvanism as a similar brand of anti-americanism.
And America is repidly approaching fascism. How I wish I had voted for the other guy... but then taiwan would be gone to the chinese... :confused:

Seriously, thoguh, the "Common Interests" theme has been used in several similar settings (The setting from Full Thrust, for example). Federates Stats l'Europe, Neu Swabian League, New Anglian Confederation (A royalist US-Canada-Brittain lump).

I think that such blocks are truly the throws of governments trying to remain stronger than the multi-nationals.
 
Back
Top