New to GURPS for Traveller
- Thread starter parmasson
- Start date
polypterus
SOC-8
We tried GT and eventually gave it up. The main reason is we didn't particularly like the personal combat system. This is probably a matter of preference. However another problem was it seemed impossible to design many may of the same ships you can using HG. This was mainly a problem with higher tech streamlined ships where you loose 20% of the space right off the bat (not sure where the space goes). Player's personal ships always eventually gravitate to the high end so it's somewhat annoying when they can't build the same ship they had before.
I think the rules in GT: starships were excellent and a good reason to stick with GT.
Honestly, the ONLY bad thing about Gt is that andy hackard's name appears in some of the products, but a little whiteout takes care of that.
I really do suggest sticking with GT, as it's well done and well written. Als the rules work well and some of the supplements add great things like ground vehicle design rules (Ground forces) and ideas for mass ground combat, like in starmercs.
Honestly, the ONLY bad thing about Gt is that andy hackard's name appears in some of the products, but a little whiteout takes care of that.
I really do suggest sticking with GT, as it's well done and well written. Als the rules work well and some of the supplements add great things like ground vehicle design rules (Ground forces) and ideas for mass ground combat, like in starmercs.
polypterus
SOC-8
Not really. Mega-traveller (whatever you think of it) typically gave you more space to work with, so you could easily go from CT to MT without many problems. Going back is a different matter, but since MT came later and there aren’t nearly as many original MT ships out there, I'm not sure this is a big issue. I can't really speak from TNG or T4. Maybe someone else can fill me in. I suspect it might be a similar situation. I guess the bottom line is I mainly care about going from CT (especially HG2) to a newer system, and not so much going back. It's hard to go from CT to GT in many cases.
As for *gulp* physics, we are talking about reactionless drives, jump drives etc. Grossly aphysical assumptions are in the eye of the beholder. Who says a spaceship drive can't create a propulsive field based on volume? You can claim it's impossible but so is a lot of SF including a lot of Traveller. In any case it makes ships much easier to design.
polypterus
SOC-8
If that's true I would throw out Striker before throwing out Book 2 and High Guard. However correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that Striker was more anti-grav technology (ala Air/Rafts). It's my understanding that it is not supposed to be the same as starship maneuver drive technology.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Get over it.
Hell, I don't much care for some people at SJG but I wouldn't be so mindlessly petty as to complain about them all the bloody time on another forum. When exactly will you get the hint that nobody here gives a damn about your hate-on for Andrew?
None of my players are really into design yet. I would like to be into a bit more of the numbers but just seem to use starships to get from one point in the story to the other. I am hesitant to give up CT because of familiarly factor. Having never used GURPS combat in a real game setting could you clue me in as to what went wrong? Sometimes it looks goon on paper but becomes awkward in practice.
We are slowly working our way through the Classic Adventures from the reprint series. I never had them back in the day so it is all new material to me.
We are slowly working our way through the Classic Adventures from the reprint series. I never had them back in the day so it is all new material to me.
Ok, from a technical viewpoint, I see it this way:
I favor a VOLUME based system for jump drive. As I understand the basic theory, and feel free to chime in if you think I'm wrong, jump drive works by creating a 'bubble' of jump space around the ship, and if that's even vaguely accurate than the ship's VOLUME is what matters, not it's mass. If the jump bubble encompasses the ship, it's based on volume and that's that.
Now, for ALL other movement I think MASS would matter, even if you have anti or contra gravity, mass matters and remains a constant. All AG or CG does is eliminate weight in a gravity well, but mass remains.
For example, if I could build a big hollow space station and take you all up into it, without some form of artificial gravity you could move a tone of steel, lead, whatever, if you could plant your feet against a wall and push on it because it has no weight, but you'd still have to expend effort to get it going and to stop or turn it because the mass is still there.
So while you could push around a cubic meter sized box of, say, lead, it would still b eeasier to push arounf a CM box of styrofoam even tho they have the same WEIGHT in 0g, because they still have radically different MASSES.
So, in cap, I say volume based movement for a jump drive, mass based movement for all other forms of propulsion.
As to gurps combat, there were some issues that were corrected in the 4e. Basically some of the big ones were:
You got a bonus to gun skills if you had a high IQ for some reason.
You had armor with a passive defense factor, which meant just by existing and sitting there, this armor made it possible for a shot to have no effect. The basic idea was that a well made piece of armor was curved and caused shots to defelect or skip off, but in practice it wasn't too realistic as putting on heavy armor lowered your dodge but improved you ability to avoid damage via the passive defense factor too much. They got rid of the passive defense in 4e.
Also, hit points were based on your health, but many people thought strength was a better thing to base HP on, and in 4e they base it on your strength.
Bullets in 3e did crushing damage, same as a mace, club, etc. Lots of people choked on that. Now they do piercing damage.
Lasers were way to potent in the gurps 3e with the autofire cumulative armor penetration rules, that's been changed.
Autofire in general was clunky and hard to handle in g3, in 4e it's been changed a lot and improved, the only thinbg now is that, thanks to the way autofire works, shotguns now have a recoil value of 1, same as a laser or other recoiless weapon. It's enough to choke on, but it's how they handle autofire and multiple projectiles like shotguns, the number of hiuts is based on how well you rolled versus the weapon's recoil. it's not too realistic to say a shotgun has a higher recoil than a .357, but when it comes to determining how many pellets of the blast hit it works out OK.
If you go to SJgames and look thru the gurps section you'll find an article on what they changed from 3e to 4e and why, it should answer a lot of your questions about combat in g3e and how it was improved in g4e. it's still not perfect, but it's impossible for a game system to be perfect.
On the plus side, gurps 3e had some great additional combat rules in the compendiums for hit locations, various damage types, etc.
I plan to run GT with 4e rules whenever possible. Also the GT starship mcombat system is pretty good, as are the ship deisgn rules when you add in the stuff from GT starships.
You could run GT with mostly 3e rules but make some changes to get the better parts of the 4e rules by using the 4e autofire rules, tho this mandates recalculating some of the weapon factors like recoil and bulk.
I favor a VOLUME based system for jump drive. As I understand the basic theory, and feel free to chime in if you think I'm wrong, jump drive works by creating a 'bubble' of jump space around the ship, and if that's even vaguely accurate than the ship's VOLUME is what matters, not it's mass. If the jump bubble encompasses the ship, it's based on volume and that's that.
Now, for ALL other movement I think MASS would matter, even if you have anti or contra gravity, mass matters and remains a constant. All AG or CG does is eliminate weight in a gravity well, but mass remains.
For example, if I could build a big hollow space station and take you all up into it, without some form of artificial gravity you could move a tone of steel, lead, whatever, if you could plant your feet against a wall and push on it because it has no weight, but you'd still have to expend effort to get it going and to stop or turn it because the mass is still there.
So while you could push around a cubic meter sized box of, say, lead, it would still b eeasier to push arounf a CM box of styrofoam even tho they have the same WEIGHT in 0g, because they still have radically different MASSES.
So, in cap, I say volume based movement for a jump drive, mass based movement for all other forms of propulsion.
As to gurps combat, there were some issues that were corrected in the 4e. Basically some of the big ones were:
You got a bonus to gun skills if you had a high IQ for some reason.
You had armor with a passive defense factor, which meant just by existing and sitting there, this armor made it possible for a shot to have no effect. The basic idea was that a well made piece of armor was curved and caused shots to defelect or skip off, but in practice it wasn't too realistic as putting on heavy armor lowered your dodge but improved you ability to avoid damage via the passive defense factor too much. They got rid of the passive defense in 4e.
Also, hit points were based on your health, but many people thought strength was a better thing to base HP on, and in 4e they base it on your strength.
Bullets in 3e did crushing damage, same as a mace, club, etc. Lots of people choked on that. Now they do piercing damage.
Lasers were way to potent in the gurps 3e with the autofire cumulative armor penetration rules, that's been changed.
Autofire in general was clunky and hard to handle in g3, in 4e it's been changed a lot and improved, the only thinbg now is that, thanks to the way autofire works, shotguns now have a recoil value of 1, same as a laser or other recoiless weapon. It's enough to choke on, but it's how they handle autofire and multiple projectiles like shotguns, the number of hiuts is based on how well you rolled versus the weapon's recoil. it's not too realistic to say a shotgun has a higher recoil than a .357, but when it comes to determining how many pellets of the blast hit it works out OK.
If you go to SJgames and look thru the gurps section you'll find an article on what they changed from 3e to 4e and why, it should answer a lot of your questions about combat in g3e and how it was improved in g4e. it's still not perfect, but it's impossible for a game system to be perfect.
On the plus side, gurps 3e had some great additional combat rules in the compendiums for hit locations, various damage types, etc.
I plan to run GT with 4e rules whenever possible. Also the GT starship mcombat system is pretty good, as are the ship deisgn rules when you add in the stuff from GT starships.
You could run GT with mostly 3e rules but make some changes to get the better parts of the 4e rules by using the 4e autofire rules, tho this mandates recalculating some of the weapon factors like recoil and bulk.
polypterus
SOC-8
So, in cap, I say volume based movement for a jump drive, mass based movement for all other forms of propulsion.
Sure you are free to define it any way you like. But let’s just suppose you say the drive creates an inverted gravity well that moves just behind the ship. Now mass doesn’t matter because as Galileo well knows two objects of different masses fall at the same rate. However volume might still matter because the effects of our inverse well are limited to a certain size based in the power input of the maneuver drive. It’s just a matter of how you want to define things.
Sure you are free to define it any way you like. But let’s just suppose you say the drive creates an inverted gravity well that moves just behind the ship. Now mass doesn’t matter because as Galileo well knows two objects of different masses fall at the same rate. However volume might still matter because the effects of our inverse well are limited to a certain size based in the power input of the maneuver drive. It’s just a matter of how you want to define things.
An inverted gravity well, I like that as I thoughtn in addition to propelling the ship 'downhill" away from the center of the 'levity' field it would also repell dust, micrometeors, etc.
Still, the GT ships I know about use 'reactionless thrusters' which move the ship via thrust, eve tho it is reactionless.
But the 'levity hill" (opposite of a gravity well) idea would be a great propulsion system for a ship too...
Still, the GT ships I know about use 'reactionless thrusters' which move the ship via thrust, eve tho it is reactionless.
But the 'levity hill" (opposite of a gravity well) idea would be a great propulsion system for a ship too...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
MTU explained the maneuver drive by allowing the ship's inertial mass to be reduced by a field, and then hybrid engines would provide the small thrust needed to accelerate.
The inertial reduction field produced by the maneuver drive can be explained by the same tech handwaves that give us grav plates, null grav modules, and acceleration compensators.
The inertial reduction field produced by the maneuver drive can be explained by the same tech handwaves that give us grav plates, null grav modules, and acceleration compensators.
polypterus
SOC-8
Reactionless is just a buzzword. All it means is that the engine breaks conservation of momentum (i.e. it doesn’t chuck mass in the opposite direction). The inverted gravity well would be considered reactionless. It doesn’t really matter how you define it. My main point is since you are already breaking the laws of physics so there is no reason it’s any better to base your drive on mass than volume. It’s all a bunch of hand waving anyway to make the rules simpler. We can even say 6 Gs is the maximum gravity you can generate (at least at Tech 15) . This would explain why ships can only accelerate at a maximum of 6 Gs.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
One thing in Traveller makes it more like Star Wars than 2001, IMHO, and that is...
the grav plate
Classsic Traveller technology wasn't really explained; they were jump drive, maneuver drive, fusion power, null gravity modules, and at high TL antimatter and matter transporters.
LBB4 gave us plasma and fusion guns, meson accelerators, nuclear dampers, gauss weapons - all sound reasonable but the amount of magic tech is creeping up
LBB5 then has meson screens, black globes, particle accelerators.
Finally the Kinunir was described, and the write up includes artificial gravity and acceleration compensators.
That's a lot of handwavium
the grav plate
Classsic Traveller technology wasn't really explained; they were jump drive, maneuver drive, fusion power, null gravity modules, and at high TL antimatter and matter transporters.
LBB4 gave us plasma and fusion guns, meson accelerators, nuclear dampers, gauss weapons - all sound reasonable but the amount of magic tech is creeping up
LBB5 then has meson screens, black globes, particle accelerators.
Finally the Kinunir was described, and the write up includes artificial gravity and acceleration compensators.
That's a lot of handwavium
polypterus
SOC-8
Having never used GURPS combat in a real game setting could you clue me in as to what went wrong? Sometimes it looks goon on paper but becomes awkward in practice.
I'm Not sure if this was directed at my post but here goes anyway.
This is just my personal experience with GURPS. You may not have the same problems we did. My players expect a certain amount of combat in most games. We found GURPS system to be excessively bloody. Combat was over almost before it started with one side or the other hitting the dirt fairly fast. This may be more realistic, however it is certainly less fun. I find combat is more fun if both players and their opposing NPCs can take a few hits without going down. Alternatively players can be matched up with greater numbers of lower power NPCs. The main idea is to balance things out so the players have the advantage but it is still a challenge. In any case we switched to the Hero System witch worked much better for what we wanted, and still lets players design their characters the way they want.
I'm Not sure if this was directed at my post but here goes anyway.
This is just my personal experience with GURPS. You may not have the same problems we did. My players expect a certain amount of combat in most games. We found GURPS system to be excessively bloody. Combat was over almost before it started with one side or the other hitting the dirt fairly fast. This may be more realistic, however it is certainly less fun. I find combat is more fun if both players and their opposing NPCs can take a few hits without going down. Alternatively players can be matched up with greater numbers of lower power NPCs. The main idea is to balance things out so the players have the advantage but it is still a challenge. In any case we switched to the Hero System witch worked much better for what we wanted, and still lets players design their characters the way they want.
For the kind of combat you want, just stick to lower powered weapons, like the 10mm snub or the 5mm body pistol and make sure that people have some body armor.
Also be sure to use the 'cobra strategy': When the bad guys take some hits their leaders yells "RETREAT!"
This is realistic if the attackers are street thugs or hired punks who aren't willing to die for their boss or a quick buck.
Also be sure to use the 'cobra strategy': When the bad guys take some hits their leaders yells "RETREAT!"
This is realistic if the attackers are street thugs or hired punks who aren't willing to die for their boss or a quick buck.
polypterus
SOC-8
Of course it's possible to make everyone use hand guns but it would require a lot of hand waving (I can hear the bitching now
). I can come up with a reasonable excuse for high energy weapons but things like assault rifles etc. players expect to use. I have friends who keep many real life guns and it's just hard to tell them they can have a starship, advanced gadgetry etc but can't seem to get their hands on a rifle. On high law level worlds its one thing, but there are lots of places that they should be able to use decent weapons. I'm not sure I can explain all the reasons why, but hero system characters just seem to work more smoothly in combat. I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch. If you are happy with GURPS then great.
Don't know how much this will help you but...
First of all in the Traveller universe it's illegal for anyone except the military or licensed Mercenaries to own/carry Energy Weapons (Plasma/Fusion Guns). Laser weapons are allowed but are also more restricted than firearms. I guess it depends on the kind of game you're running. If you're characters are all ex-Navy S.E.A.L.'s then yeah, you're going to have to get extensively into the heavy weapons. If you're not running a military type game then most people will only have handguns and/or maybe a shotgun.
Also I personally use Gurps for characters but I continue to use Highguard for ships. It's quicker, it's easier, and I have this little program that makes ship creation a snap! High Guard Shipyard
First of all in the Traveller universe it's illegal for anyone except the military or licensed Mercenaries to own/carry Energy Weapons (Plasma/Fusion Guns). Laser weapons are allowed but are also more restricted than firearms. I guess it depends on the kind of game you're running. If you're characters are all ex-Navy S.E.A.L.'s then yeah, you're going to have to get extensively into the heavy weapons. If you're not running a military type game then most people will only have handguns and/or maybe a shotgun.
Also I personally use Gurps for characters but I continue to use Highguard for ships. It's quicker, it's easier, and I have this little program that makes ship creation a snap! High Guard Shipyard
Similar threads
