Does Classic Traveller need an update?

[Supplement Four]

There have been so many attempts at "updating" Classic Traveller. So many versions of Traveller claim to harken back to the original game.

MegaTraveller was a Classic Traveller update. Marc Miller's Traveller claimed to build upon Classic Traveller roots. The same is said for Mongoose Traveller. I believe Traveller 5th edition is making the same claim. d20 Traveller strives to be consistent with Classic Traveller.

So many attempts to "update" the original game?

I wonder...

Do you think Classic Traveller needs an update?

Or, is it great the way it is?

Just curious.

 

[aramis]

I do believe it needs an update, but no one yet has done it right. MoTrav and Mega both come really close. I missed the playtest of ACT, so it might have been, and may yet still be, a viable option.

 

[Border Reiver]

IMO Megatraveller about got it right, it was the version that needed the update to straighten out the errors and make it a little more readable.

 

[robject]

IMO Megatraveller about got it right, it was the version that needed the update to straighten out the errors and make it a little more readable.

In terms of level of detail, rules inclusiveness, and bringing everything together, I agree. But, the level of detail sometimes seemed to make the game less fun and more work. I reckon that's a candidate for significant cleanup.

In terms of playability and faithfulness to the original, I think MoTrav is shaping up well.

In faithfulness to High Guard, I think ACT was spot-on, yet it seemed as though funness were bleached out of the product.

 

[atpollard]

Classic Traveller's greatness lies in it’s dual nature (B1-B4 char-gen, B2-B5 starships, etc.). Most of the previous ‘updates’ have tended to expand the ‘complex’ rules and eliminate the ‘simple’ rules.

I disagree with that approach.

More than an ‘update’, what Classic Traveller really needs a new ‘edition’ that would more clearly present many of the basic concepts (like Experience), correct the disagreements between the ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ rules so they produce compatible results (like the Starship Design Tables and Formula) and correct the minor bugbears that plague some of the random tables (the possibility of billions of people living at TL 2 on an airless Mars-sized world around a Red Giant star comes immediately to mind).


But the reality is that in the end, there will never be a consensus on what needs changing and what works – so don’t hold your breath waiting. At best, Mongoose Traveller will be ‘close enough’ and the OGL will encourage ‘variant rules’ to recapture any missing Classic Traveller ‘spirit’.

 

[Supplement Four]

More than an ‘update’, what Classic Traveller really needs a new ‘edition’ that would more clearly present...

What he said!

My vote for T5 would have been a plain clean up (not major overhaul) of the CT rules as-is.

Not a new task system, but some guidelines on how to use the CT free-form method.

Clean up of the discrepencies in the rules.

A game that is virtually the same game that CT is...just better because of the editing and clean up.

But the reality is that in the end, there will never be a consensus on what needs changing and what works – so don’t hold your breath waiting.

No face turning blue here.

And, I don't need Mongoose Trav either. I'm not too impressed with it. It's not "better" than CT, and in some ways has its own problems and kinks.

I'll stick with the problems and kinks I know and love.

A replacement game has a tall order to fill. And, I'm not switchin until someone figures out how to fill it correctly.

Long live CT!

 

[Droyne668]

As Yaskoydray used to say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

CT ain't broke.

 

[Lord Iron Wolf]

Too Scattered

I like CT for its simplicity. Because it grew organically, it is scattered all over the place! When I try to look something up is it in Books 1-8, the suppliments, adventures, JTAS--and that's only the official stuff. It's like having a toolbox scattered all over the house. (Traveller game prep takes enough time as is)

Please assemble Traveller (and throw in a simple Task System too.)

Lord Iron Wolf

 

[aramis]

I'd say it needs a consistent and clear task system. It needs consolidation, and it needs a reality fix for worlds. And it needs a better combat mechanic (I think MT is darned good, and a fair sight better than CT there).

MT does a fine job, but is over complex.
MoTrav has one advantage: I can "fix" its rules, and publish the result.

 

[Supplement Four]

Please assemble Traveller (and throw in a simple Task System too.)

Like Rule 68A?

Check my sig. Simple enough for ya?

 

[Ishmael]

I see no reason to update it...
People who love it will just keep playing it as it is..
the rest will play other forms ( my own favorite is MT )
and any 'updating' that it 'needs' will be done by indiviual ref's as house rules...just like its always been.

 

[Jeffr0]

Wrong wrong wrong.

The problem with Traveller is that nothing's ever been fixed-- they just kept making new versions.

At some point the line needed someone to clean things up and settle things-- sorta like SFB's "Doomsday" edition. (Even Car Wars underwent several stages of iterative improvement.) With Traveller the idea was always to come up with new variations without fixing anything that had gone before. This sucks. It effectively leaves all the game design up for the referee to improvise. Running a universe is hard enough as it is...

 

[Jame]

I'd say that the tech levels are what need improvement. Other than that it's an open question.

 

[aramis]

Like Rule 68A?

Check my sig. Simple enough for ya?

That's not clear and consistent, as it's inferred from a dozen different spots and not uniformly applied.

Now, if it were written clearly with consistent modifier sets, and added to the core... That would be.

One big problem with CT is "What do levels mean?"
MT fixed this by having a task system which clearly defines what is done with skill levels, and task which exemplify routine operations, and thus allow one to intuit or to deduce what a skill level means far easier.

 

[Supplement Four]

That's not clear and consistent, as it's inferred from a dozen different spots and not uniformly applied.

A person's got to be blind not to think Rule 68A is not simple, clear, and consistent as the GM wants it to be.

Now, if it were written clearly with consistent modifier sets, and added to the core... That would be.

That would be a structured task system. Part of CT's success, in my judgement, is the charm and creativity of the unstructured task sytem.

One big problem with CT is "What do levels mean?"

Skill levels?

I agree this is an area where CT could use some clean up. Just by playing a lot of it have I learned that:

Skill-0 is akin to bare minimum knowledge. Ex: Took a first aid class.

Skill-1 is employable expertise. Ex: A paramedic.

Skill-2 is specialized experience. Ex: Critical care nurse.

Skill-3 is a professional. Ex: A doctor.

Most character won't see Skill-4 or higher, but when this does happen, its easy to infer how skilled these people truly are.

In a CT clean up (no rules changes--just explanation where needed), I'd like to see something like this.

And, it'd be nice to see the same done with stats.

MT fixed this by having a task system which clearly defines what is done with skill levels, and task which exemplify routine operations, and thus allow one to intuit or to deduce what a skill level means far easier.

I know you're about as big a fan of MT as I am of CT, but I think MT broke as many things as it fixed.

CT, as is, is the superior game, when compared to MT, as is (IMHO, of course).

 

[GypsyComet]

Wrong wrong wrong.

The problem with Traveller is that nothing's ever been fixed-- they just kept making new versions.

At some point the line needed someone to clean things up and settle things-- sorta like SFB's "Doomsday" edition. (Even Car Wars underwent several stages of iterative improvement.) With Traveller the idea was always to come up with new variations without fixing anything that had gone before. This sucks.

Marc and Loren are probably rolling their eyes at this one. CT *was* fixed in several sub-systems long before MT came along. There were two or three fairly distinct "editions" within CT even without looking at the combat variations provided by Snapshot, AHL, and Striker, not to mention two versions of High Guard. The first few printings of B1-3 were different from the middle years, and different again from the Traveller Book and the Ultimate Edition box. CT as GDW wanted to print it and play it was a done deal in 1984.

The "problem" is that these CT-internal editions all blend together for all but the oldest of players who were around to watch them happen, and many don't even realize that they were already on "2nd Edition" by the time High Guard existed. Here's a clue: if your B1-3 tell you that the Type C has Modular Cutters, you're already at least on 2nd Edition.

Some of the items mentioned here already are non-trivial. Changes to those systems threaten to make the game "not-Traveller". Other items mentioned have already been changed, but under later editions of the game. "But that's not CT!" I hear. No, it isn't, but it IS Traveller. You play Traveller, right? As CT fans, you already need a Geek Code to decipher your particular sub-flavors. What is the resistance to looking at the later versions to see if your particular issue has been resolved?

"But I hated MT!" No, you hated the Rebellion and the errata, and missed the task language, WBH, and some kickin aliens books.

"But I hated TNE!" No, you hated Virus, d20s and no TL15, and thus missed Ship Shares, corrected stellar type distributions, common-sense power usage, super-missiles, and external docking clamps.

"But I hated T4!" No... Okay, that one I might give you, but you still missed out on SSDS, one or two useful new aliens (out of a dozen, granted), and a sexy book full of ironmongery.

"But I hated G:T!" No, you hated point build characters, hex grids, and only four stats, and missed starport design, rigorous treatment of many background institutions, and fuzzy world building.

"But I hated T20!" No, you still hated d20s (but capitalized this time) and an arcanely described character history system, and missed a new approach to starship Bridge volumes and another go at tactical skirmish combat.

I don't yet know what's to hate or miss about Traveller Hero, T5, or MongTrav, but I do know that the later-edition blindspot of CT and MT fans will only get bigger unless those who possess it learn to recognize it and look around it.

Why is it on you? Let's be frank. Any fixes that occur from here on will not bear the CT stamp. They'll be under TH, T5, or Mongoose logos. You're either going to have to graft stuff into your CT games, or continue to be unhappy.

 

[far-trader]

Rants are fun (if you can call this a rant ) I wanna play too, you got me grinning...

"But I hated T4!" No... Okay, that one I might give you...

lol, once you got past the errata it wasn't all so bad, but QSDS kicked SSDS into the next sector

"But I hated G:T!" No, you hated point build characters, hex grids, and only four stats...

You forgot... "not metric and power slices in ship design" but since I never got into it for some of those reasons (and the fact nobody wanted to play it) I never knew what I was missing. To be honest point build, hex grids and four stats were never turn offs for me. My first exposure to GT was... no I can't say it for fear of traumatizing the people who worked on it with my scathing disappointment. The fact that it was not metric was secondary.

"But I hated T20!" ...and missed a new approach to starship Bridge volumes and another go at tactical skirmish combat.

You forgot... "and missed a decent workable expanded trade system." Of course me being a trader that's one I noted early.

That's it for me tonight, the new year has turned and I'm beat...

HAPPY NEW YEAR TRAVELLERS!

 

[Supplement Four]

You're either going to have to graft stuff into your CT games, or continue to be unhappy.

Um, (meekly raises hand), I like CT just the way it is (and what I don't like, I'll house rule).

 

[GypsyComet]

The rant is really about the "Edition Blindspot". It pops up way too often among long-time players who should know better, and is strongest in CT, MT, and GT players. Too much of the time, it centers around the hatred of the advancing official timeline into either the Rebellion or (via Virus) the New Era, and renders them blind to the useful parts of those editions.

The number of times I've seen "Virus is stupid; I won't touch TNE" followed by "What do you do if the group comes up with more than one starship in Prior Careers?" or "How do I do fueled reaction drives?" has become appalling. The other one is the stellar size chart, pointedly revised in TNE to match developments in real world Astronomy. This is exactly the type of "update" being asked for in some discussions, 18 years AFTER it's already been done.

So why aren't the TNE players reminding everyone else about these things? That's a different rant, and is tied to the TML of the 1990s, the origins of GURPS Traveller, and why talk of the online Traveller "Community" is a sad, ironic joke. Not appropriate to this Poll Discussion, however.

 

[Jeffr0]

On iterations:

What is MegaTraveller's current errata situation? Does anyone even know where it all is... much less, do we have a fully debugged core rulebook for it?

What about T4? The ship combat system is barely good enough for a playtest draft!

CT is great because it was at least refined a couple of times. MegaTraveller and T4 could have been honed into an "nth generation" Traveller game, but the trouble was not taken.

(SJG, on the other hand, did follow good design practice: GTIW takes into account nearly every criticism I'd had for GT....)