Intro and Panel Help for Con.

[ljsteele]

(I hate this program. It dislikes the password and keeps making me use the back button, which has wiped out the typed message text!)

Anyway. I'm doing a panel at Arisia next weekend on system and setting, how the game system affects the campaign world. Traveller is our example because it has been through so many rules sets.

Comments anyone?

Intro:
I bought the original black box set when it came out. I've played TNE, two G:Trav games, and recently in CT.

I'm the author of GURPS:Cops (SJG), Fief (White Wolf/Cumberland Games), and a contributing author for Dark Ages Europe (WW) and the forthcoming Spoils of War (WW). I'm working on another project for SJG at present.

 

[Smiling DM]

Originally posted by Lisa:

Anyway. I'm doing a panel at Arisia next weekend on system and setting, how the game system affects the campaign world. Traveller is our example because it has been through so many rules sets.

Comments anyone?

What a great idea - I am thrilled that someone else sees that there is a correlation between game mechanic and setting feel. Feel pretty vindicated (it was a long, hard argument at DragonCon a few years back, and I walked away feeling I hadn't convinced any one else of this).

To your topic, I think in the case of Traveller everyone has the sense that the feel of Traveller must match that of CT, so any deviation in terms of mechanics from CT is heavily scrutinized. In fact a lot of die-hards won't even consider switching to a new system for fear of losing that intangible quality that is Traveller. Just take a look at the various topics and discussion areas - heck there's even a movement to create T5 which is completely based on CT. In point of fact, you may find a lot of fodder to answer your question by scanning a topic in the T5 discussion "Why have previous versions of Traveller failed?"

For the game designers that have done the different incarnations, CT is the baseline that everyone seems to start from. GT made some changes due to some inherent assumptions in GURPS and others in the area of Trade to fix aspects that were considered 'broken'. TNE is the only exception as it seems to have evolved from MT.

The point being, everyone seems to have sub-consciously agreed that CT is the true representation of Traveller, and all future embodiments must be in some way compatible to still be considered Traveller. The new T20 ship construction rules are very similar (if not darn near identical) to CT High Guard. Even your posting on the Psi mechanics being broken in T20 is based on an assumption that CT is the valid baseline ((Don't get me wrong, I happen to agree with you that the mechanics are broken for someone trying to make a true Psi)).

Some backgroun info - didn't do CT - I couldn't find a game during the CT LBB days - saw one once and it got me hooked on Traveller - just could never find it again. Started in T:2300, kinda skipped MT (again, no one around was interested), tried to run a TNE, finally got a chance to run GT, and am currently running a regular T20.

I'd be very interested to hear how your discussion goes - please post a short note after the weekend.

 

[ljsteele]

What a great idea - I am thrilled that someone else sees that there is a correlation between game mechanic and setting feel. Feel pretty vindicated (it was a long, hard argument at DragonCon a few years back, and I walked away feeling I hadn't convinced any one else of this).

I don't think you can avoid it. To take the most crude example, compare Champions (Hero Sys) with GURPS:Supers. Now compare the old Hero (Justice Inc.) with GURPS:Cliffhangers.

Champions is designed to handle 4 color heroics well. It does not take many points to be more powerful than a locamotive or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. GURPS on the other hand was designed to handle more realistic play. Scaling it up to handle Champions gets ugly.

On the other hand, it is harder to scale Champions down to dramatic (TV action series) levels of power precisely because it is so cheap and easy to go over the top. This is the metier GURPS was designed for.

It would be hard play a mythic medieval Europe using D3e partly because the system does not distinguish well between armor types and weapon damage types as GURPS does. You don't see the same armor/weapon matches because the system doesn't have rules to support it.

These issues should come up in Traveller as it moves from 1st generation rules (CT) to detail oriented system (GURPS) to cinematic system (d20).

 

[lightsenshi]

Originally posted by Lisa:
These issues should come up in Traveller as it moves from 1st generation rules (CT) to detail oriented system (GURPS) to cinematic system (d20).

Actually, I pretty much think that they have. I just don't know (not being very familiar with CT and not at all with GURPS) how thoroughly it's been done.

 

[Smiling DM]

Originally posted by Lisa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What a great idea - I am thrilled that someone else sees that there is a correlation between game mechanic and setting feel. Feel pretty vindicated (it was a long, hard argument at DragonCon a few years back, and I walked away feeling I hadn't convinced any one else of this).

I don't think you can avoid it. To take the most crude example, compare Champions (Hero Sys) with GURPS:Supers. Now compare the old Hero (Justice Inc.) with GURPS:Cliffhangers.

Champions is designed to handle 4 color heroics well. It does not take many points to be more powerful than a locamotive or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. GURPS on the other hand was designed to handle more realistic play. Scaling it up to handle Champions gets ugly.

On the other hand, it is harder to scale Champions down to dramatic (TV action series) levels of power precisely because it is so cheap and easy to go over the top. This is the metier GURPS was designed for.
</font>[/QUOTE]
I know - it seems OBVIOUS to me too - great examples. I tried a Fantasy Hero campaign once - just once - it was all I needed to see the "problems" - I love Champions, and for 4-color, it is my game of choice.

It would be hard play a mythic medieval Europe using D3e partly because the system does not distinguish well between armor types and weapon damage types as GURPS does. You don't see the same armor/weapon matches because the system doesn't have rules to support it.

Another example of bad-fit - the world of Harn - never got into Harnmaster, and was intrigued by the attempt to convert it to D20. Even though I like D20, it is a bad fit fot Harn because of the low-magic, realistic feudal "feel" for the setting. Currently looking at Riddle of Steel as a possible match for Harn. I know, you're gonna say "Why not GURPS??" - just never got the warm fuzzies for GURPS, either in Fantasy nor in Traveller. Maybe it was the GM's (of course I was the GM for Traveller, so I guess I have no one else to blame but myself).

These issues should come up in Traveller as it moves from 1st generation rules (CT) to detail oriented system (GURPS) to cinematic system (d20).

And I think it has to some degree - if only you could transport some of the more vocal members of these boards to your session, I'd think you'd see well heck of a lively debate (and maybe even some of it rational

Only a few folks have discussed the impact of the move from a standard bell curve distribution (from a 2d6 roll) to that of a linear distribution (d20). That alone makes things VERY different when you start looking at +1 and +2 DM.

In good credit to QLI, I think they have done a good job in trying to preserve that feel as much as possible - actually I think SJG has too (though I prefer T20 to GT, I still use the GT sourcebooks quite heavily - I consider them the best supllements made for the game to date - and that goes for all versions - haven't seen the DGP stuff though - the "Grognards" tell me they were the best).

Good luck in your session.

 

[ljsteele]

Only a few folks have discussed the impact of the move from a standard bell curve distribution (from a 2d6 roll) to that of a linear distribution (d20). That alone makes things VERY different when you start looking at +1 and +2 DM.

Yup. CT is 2d6. G:Trav is 3d6. Bell curves, both. T20 is, as you say, linear.

Also look at the xp/advance system.

CT classically had no advancement. It was advantageous to stay in service as long as possible to get skills.

G:Trav is open-ended. No cost modifiers for profession.

T20 makes profession very important with cross-class skills and additional feats by class. Not to mention planning for feats and prestige classes.

 

[notagoodusername]

Hi Lisa,

This has no relevance to the topic, but I just wanted to chirp in with a big "Yay you!" for G:Cops - what a great book! I've always though the law gets the bum end of the deal in most games. Again - what a great book!

ObTop:

It is an interesting point that TNE, the setting that has deviated the most from traditional Traveller, kept the same rules principles of prior history and cascade skills (etc), but Gurps Traveller is a vastly different rules set (no prior history for one, no UWPs, etc) with a traditional-style setting. This implies that the the impact of changes caused by the setting/system relationship can be minimised with a bit of work.

Also, every version of the Traveller rules has accompanied a change in the setting (however small) from the previous "official direction". MT brought the rebellion, TNE the Virus era, T20 a step back to CT and a progression of the New Era (when Martin writes it...), and GT a return to CT days. This implies a renewal/recreation of the rules also requires a recreation of the setting to feel new in the authour's eyes.

Did any of that rambling monologue makes sense? (too many 14-hour days...)

Shane

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Smiling DM:
I know - it seems OBVIOUS to me too - great examples. I tried a Fantasy Hero campaign once - just once - it was all I needed to see the "problems" - I love Champions, and for 4-color, it is my game of choice.

I've been tempted to get Hero 5th, I have to walk by it everytime I go to my FLGS, but at this point I'm more interested in either SAS Tri-Stat or Mutants & Masterminds (D20 w/out levels or classes woot!). Still the big black book calls to me...(just the combined price tag to play a Champions game and the total page count/complexity keeps me back)

These issues should come up in Traveller as it moves from 1st generation rules (CT) to detail oriented system (GURPS) to cinematic system (d20).

Well I'd say D20 still has plenty of details

(too many in some areas IMO) but it is more cinematic overall. However the various vitality (T20's Lifeblood for example) and Con Check kills can make the game more lethal.

And Call of Cthulhu D20 still has the very realistic Sanity rules almost literally ripped from the BRP version.

Hum,examples of mechanic<->setting.

Also since T20 usually starts out a chracter at at least 4th level and if the GM keeps XP rewarded at a low level leveling up wouldn't be as bad as D&D and characters would remain roughly the same for a longer time.
[QUOTE}
In good credit to QLI, I think they have done a good job in trying to preserve that feel as much as possible - actually I think SJG has too (though I prefer T20 to GT, I still use the GT sourcebooks quite heavily - I consider them the best supllements made for the game to date - and that goes for all versions - haven't seen the DGP stuff though - the "Grognards" tell me they were the best).[/QUOTE]
That's one nice thing about Gurps sourcebooks, they're usually very useful for any system, regardless of wether or not you play Gurps. I've bought Celtic Myth, Horror, and Space for references before I'd even seen the actual Gurps rules.

Now that I'm getting back into playing Traveller I'm thinking of picking up several GT books.
And sjgames.com is one of the best game company website out there.

Casey