Classic Traveller vs Traveller T20?

[tcabril]

I am really hoping to get a Traveller game up and running soon. I have pretty much all the Classic Traveller stuff and the main book for T20.

I guess what I am asking is what do others prefer? Do others just play Classic Traveller or do they like the T20 rendition.
(Note I am not through reading the T20 rules as of yet)

 

[BetterThanLife]

After some experimenting, I personally prefer T20 to CT for a few reasons.

1. Personal combat is still lethal, however it isn't as lethal as CT, where the first person to hit, usually the first person to shoot, wins regardless of armor or other considerations.

2. Combat is scalable. There are rules for combat, people vs vehicles vs starships etc. (CT lacks these rules though there may be a good adaptation in Striker, which I don't have.)

3. T20 largely preserves the CT feel of the game, except you can't die during character creation, and character creation isn't quite as random. (May be good or bad depending on your point of view.)

4. Characters can improve over time. (In CT you generally play the same characters, with no improvements until the campaign ends.)

5. Most of the CT material can be directly translated to T20, and viceversa, with the exception of large ship combat, with fairly predictible results.

6. Small ship combat, ie typical PC size ships and small craft, works in T20. (Vs. flying around for a few hours taking pot shots hoping that eventually you will hit. LBB5)

7. The rules are more logically laid out, in terms of how skills work, more consistent, yet still manages to generally have the same results as similar task uses in CT.

Just my thoughts.

 

[tcabril]

Hey Thanks - I am always going to love Classic Traveller but maybe T20 is worth a shot!!!

Thanks again

 

[flykiller]

6. Small ship combat, ie typical PC size ships and small craft, works in T20. (Vs. flying around for a few hours taking pot shots hoping that eventually you will hit. LBB5)

is this a good thing?

CT emphasizes player roleplay and the referee's story. in T20 and its D&D ilk growing the character i.e. accumulating more powers i.e. dicing up enemies in ever more effortless fashion is the main focus. which kind of game do you want to run?

 

[mike wightman]

I've found that playing T20, and refereeing a T20 variant, that the game plays out in a very similar way to CT.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Full disclosure: I am a CT diehard.

My first real look at T20 has been looking at the Traveller Guidebook (in the playtest area). I really dislike the idea of no skills for combat - just a few feats, and your class level.

I don't dislike levels (though I do dislike them) as much as I dislike that use of them. Oh, yeah, and Feats. The idea is good, but they are used (many times, IMHO) for the wrong things - things that should be skills.

From posts around this forum, though, I think a lot of other things are great. And, of course, there is Hunter's signature:

hunter's signature:
The ONLY rules to T20. Everything else is a suggestion...
…1) The Referee is right.
…2) If the book says one thing and the referee says another, see rule #1
…3) Argue about it AFTER the game
It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />6. Small ship combat, ie typical PC size ships and small craft, works in T20. (Vs. flying around for a few hours taking pot shots hoping that eventually you will hit. LBB5)

is this a good thing?

CT emphasizes player roleplay and the referee's story. in T20 and its D&D ilk growing the character i.e. accumulating more powers i.e. dicing up enemies in ever more effortless fashion is the main focus. which kind of game do you want to run? </font>[/QUOTE]The Small ship combat working? Yes it is a good thing. Take two typical fighters. (Equal fighters.) Get out your high guard tables and have a dogfight. Who wins?

(ANswer, nobody, they can't hit each other.)

 

[flykiller]

yes, I've been aware of the aesthetically displeasing situation regarding fighters in HG2 for a few years now. "typical" PC ships, however, fall outside of this circumstance. using HG2 a, say, tech 12 factor 1 laser has a 3/36 chance of hitting a tech 12 400 dton ship. this seems a good value for a role-playing game. is anything added to such a game by making ship combat more deadly?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:
yes, I've been aware of the aesthetically displeasing situation regarding fighters in HG2 for a few years now. "typical" PC ships, however, fall outside of this circumstance. using HG2 a, say, tech 12 factor 1 laser has a 3/36 chance of hitting a tech 12 400 dton ship. this seems a good value for a role-playing game. is anything added to such a game by making ship combat more deadly?

It makes it much closer to on par with Personal Combat. In CT, personal combat is, IMHO, too deadly, especially for an RPG. Watering that down a bit, though MT took it a little too far, is a good thing. T20 seems to have struck a better balance for personal combat and combat is about on par all the way from personal combat to Destroyer Escort range. (Once you get into bay weapons, especially Meson Bays, and larger then T20 ship combat gets close to the CT personal combat excessively deadly category.)

 

[Pickles]

IMO, the ship combat issue is far less important than character combat and progression. IIRC, the polls here indicate that most campaigns are detached scout or merchant based, which means PCs are basically in bottom-of-the-line ships and should avoid ship combat like the plague.

On character progression, CT and T20 are opposite ends of the spectrum, and a compromise between the two might be better. Experience is highly undervalued in CT, and too reliant on kill-count in D20.

On another point related to levels, in T20 and D20 Modern games I have run, Hit Points do not increase after level 4.

This isn't really answering the original question, is it? I suppose it depends on what campaign style you want - more combat (T20) or more role-play (CT).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Nothing but "skill points" should be based on level. Everything else should be a skill. One thing I liked about Rolemaster (the original) was that the only things your level impacted were some resistance rolls (to magic) and the fact you got more skill points. You had to buy your hit dice (so you could increase, or not) even.

Oh yeah, and you had temporary stats and potential stats. Every time your level increased, you could try to advance your stats up to their potential.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
IMO, the ship combat issue is far less important than character combat and progression. IIRC, the polls here indicate that most campaigns are detached scout or merchant based, which means PCs are basically in bottom-of-the-line ships and should avoid ship combat like the plague.

On character progression, CT and T20 are opposite ends of the spectrum, and a compromise between the two might be better. Experience is highly undervalued in CT, and too reliant on kill-count in D20.

On another point related to levels, in T20 and D20 Modern games I have run, Hit Points do not increase after level 4.

This isn't really answering the original question, is it? I suppose it depends on what campaign style you want - more combat (T20) or more role-play (CT).

Now I was under the impression that the majority of experience was based on adventure, not body count.

 

[GypsyComet]

T20 specifically decouples opponent body count from experience points. It's all about story awards, which means the PCs advance at precisely the rate the Referee wants them to.

T20's hit points have two parts. Your ability to outlast in a fist fight gets better over time, while your ability to take bullets doesn't.

Leave ship-to-ship combat to the professionals, yes. But if you have an air/raft to stop and all you've got is the Pinnace, you *do* want to have more than just a handwave to resolve that, right? Of course, vice versa (you're in the air/raft) is more likely with PCs...

Remember. Class and Level don't make it D&D. Bettering yourself through subterranean home-invasion robbery and homicide of ethically-challenged non-humans (ie. "Evil Monsters") makes it D&D. You can play Traveller that way, and I won't stop you from doing so, but please don't claim that Traveller now *must* be played that way because it shares mechanics with D&D.

 

[Flynn]

CT and MT hold a special place in my heart for all things Traveller, but I have to admit that I will most likely run a great majority of my Traveller games going forward in T20.

As others have pointed out, T20 feels a lot like CT, which is a testament to Hunter's skill at system design. But it allowed me to tap into the D20 gamers clique, and that's the reason why I have been running a long-term T20 campaign for over two years now, while before, I'd be lucky to get something that lasted more than three sessions.

For me, these results are enough to convince me to use T20 as my basic Traveller system. For you, it might not be a concern. Either way, I think you'll find both will give you a rewarding experience, whichever route you decide to go.

Best of luck,
Flynn

 

[RickA]

I played CT and it had enough mechanical problems to keep it from being a long lasting campaign in our game group.

We've run various D20 games over the years, but also dable in Call of Cthulhu (the Chaosium version) and other games.

T20 is an excellent system (though the book wastes way to much space with example ship and vehicle designs and not enough space on more rules) and has a very CT feel to the game we're running now. Combat is lethal (lost two this last weekend to bows and arrows on a Tech 2 planet) yet is better than CT imho.

I think they made armor too important (reduces damage AND reduces chance to be hit) but it works anyhow.

The comment on how T20 does xp by body count is mystifying to me though. It's all about the story reward.

CT for Roleplay and T20 for combat? Also mystifying to me as few mechanical systems push roleplay over combat or vice versa. It's not the mechanics that makes a game more RP oriented, it's the referee.

 

[flykiller]

It's not the mechanics that makes a game more RP oriented, it's the referee.

if so, why does this

But it allowed me to tap into the D20 gamers clique, and that's the reason why I have been running a long-term T20 campaign for over two years now, while before, I'd be lucky to get something that lasted more than three sessions.

happen?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Full disclosure: I am a CT diehard.

My first real look at T20 has been looking at the Traveller Guidebook (in the playtest area). I really dislike the idea of no skills for combat - just a few feats, and your class level.

I don't dislike levels (though I do dislike them) as much as I dislike that use of them. Oh, yeah, and Feats. The idea is good, but they are used (many times, IMHO) for the wrong things - things that should be skills.

I know where you're coming from (I really don't like how you need a feat and a skill to drive vehicles in T20. One is totally redundant).

But with weapon skills, you have to understand the d20 system a bit. Your ability to hit things is determined by your BAB (Base attack bonus), which is tied to your character's level. If Weapon use was a skill, then it would be applied - like all skills - as a modifier to the d20 roll. if that was applied right now, you would have a situation where you had BAB determined by character level, *and* on top of that you'd have weapon skills increasing the modifier too. That would unbalance things and make it very easy for characters to hit targets, so weapon use is governed by an 'on/off' feat - either you can use the weapon or you can't, and the BAB tells you how well you can hit with it.

If you wanted to have weapons as skills, then you'd need to drop the BABs completely (maybe you'd have a default BAB if you had no weapon skill) and have the weapon skill levels determine the to hit modifier.

Now, for some obscure reason T20 applies this logic to vehicles too, and I've never understood why. They could be done as straight skills, that are only accessible to people who come from worlds with a certain TL. There's no need to require a vehicle driving feat too.

 

[GypsyComet]

Because most of the new generation of gamers are focused. "RPGs" means D&D/D20, "Miniatures" means GW, and "CCGs" means Magic. Many don't want to learn a new set of mechanics. If appealing to mechanical similarities gets players where setting doesn't, then that's what you do.

(That it also means that the 90's are *really* over for RPGs is noteworthy as well...)

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
...Now, for some obscure reason T20 applies this logic to vehicles too, and I've never understood why. They could be done as straight skills, that are only accessible to people who come from worlds with a certain TL. There's no need to require a vehicle driving feat too.

In the case of T20, it is to keep the vehicle "skills" organized the same way they were in earlier editions *without* requiring skill rank purchase in eight or nine skills. Feats are also fairly common in T20, so anyone wanting to be able to drive something specific shouldn't have a hard time coming up with the spare feat to spend on it. By comparison, you'll find yourself scraping for skill points.

Similarly, armors (up through Vacc Suits and BD) are a "comfort boolean" sort of thing: Does the armor get in your way more than it has to, or not?

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, Malenfant, that is my point - drop the BAB. I know it breaks the D20 paradigm, but how old I am has no direct bearing on my ability to survive combat (well, except for stat deterioration). As I have said, I liked Rolemaster because the levels were mostly irrelevant, except as a way to gain more skills/spells/hit points/etc. I loved Traveller because there were no levels - my character with 2 terms could be a dealier shot than the grizzled 6-term veteran, and that was realistic. (But, yeah, I thought it was dumb to have to, say, get Body Pistol and Auto Pistol separately....)