Rule variations within CT

[Bob Weaver]

Hey all,

I recently borrowed a copy of the Traveller Book and I noticed a discrepancy in the combat matrices from LBB 1. For example, Bk1 lists the damage dice for Body Pistols as 3D-8, Auto Pistols 3D-3 and Rifles 3D. But in the Traveller Book, all three weapons have damage dice listed as 3D.
How did I not notice this before? Which version of damage dice do you use in your games? And are there other points of discrepancy between the big Book and the LBBs? How did this happen?

Confused,

Bob W.

 

[tbeard1999]

Hey all,

I recently borrowed a copy of the Traveller Book and I noticed a discrepancy in the combat matrices from LBB 1. For example, Bk1 lists the damage dice for Body Pistols as 3D-8, Auto Pistols 3D-3 and Rifles 3D. But in the Traveller Book, all three weapons have damage dice listed as 3D.
How did I not notice this before? Which version of damage dice do you use in your games? And are there other points of discrepancy between the big Book and the LBBs? How did this happen?
Bob W.

Damage changed in Snapshot (1979). These changes were reflected in the second printing of the LBBs (1981), the Traveller Book (1982) and Starter Traveller (1983).

IMHO, the problem with the original weapon damages is that applying modifiers made the process of applying damage unreasonably fiddly. By eliminating modifiers, it became much easier to apply damage in single-die increments.

 

[mike wightman]

There are a lot of changes between the original version of CT and the revised version.
IMHO the revised version of damage dice is much better.

 

[beowulf2044]

Damge Typos

Ah, yes. The Classic Typos. The first generation combat tables had +/- modifiers for damage, which were quickly dropped in favor of straight numbers of dice for damage. The problem was the second generation combat tables did not adjust in the areas of the Cutlass and the Body Pistol. The publication of Citizens of the Imperium and others after properly list the the damage as Cutlass=3D6 and Body Pistol=2D6.

 

[aramis]

Damage changed in Snapshot (1979). These changes were reflected in the second printing of the LBBs (1981), the Traveller Book (1982) and Starter Traveller (1983).

Not second printing, second edition. There were trivial changes in the first several printings, like J Torps going away... but the 1981 and later printings were strongly revised.

 

[Vargas]

Not second printing, second edition. There were trivial changes in the first several printings, like J Torps going away... but the 1981 and later printings were strongly revised.

I thought the sole reference to Jump torpedoes was in Leviathan.

 

[tbeard1999]

Not second printing, second edition....

Glad we got that important point clarified.

Second edition.

 

[mike wightman]

Jump torpedos were in every print run of original CT until the revised version was published in 1981, along with a drive table that is subtly different from the revised version and a few other changes (no trade route table in LBB3 revised for example).

Somewhere, somewhen there was a thread about all the differences between "original" CT and "revised" CT.

Another notable change from original to revised is scouts getting two skills per term of service and the optional death rule.

 

[far-trader]

...Another notable change from original to revised is scouts getting two kills per term of service and the optional death rule.

So um, just who are these serial killer Scouts killing at a rate of two per term. And what are the kill rates for the other careers? I can't seem to find it mentioned...

:smirk:


I love it when notes about errata contribute to the same and create a fun new rule.

That's a killer typo there

 

[Supplement Four]

Jump torpedos were in every print run of original CT...

I've always strayed away from the controversy surrounding J-Torps, never reading the whys and why nots.

In a sentence or two, can provide both sides of the argument?

Another notable change from original to revised is scouts getting two kills per term of service and the optional death rule.

And, would you mind spelling these rules out? I'd like to hear what they were.







PS: I've never seen a copy of first edition CT (or even the first Book 5), but I am aware of the massive changes--I just don't know what all of those changes are. I do know, in Book 5, that the fuel purifier is different from that in the later edition.

 

[Icosahedron]

I think the whys for jump torps are a bit slim, which is why they were dropped. They were a bit too powerful, I think. The why not probably revolves around why you can put a jump drive in a missile but not in a small craft.

I haven't really followed the discussion either, primarily because I dismissed them myself, years before I heard they'd been officially dropped.

I have a house rule that allows jump drives in small craft anyway, and if you wanted a jump torp you could build one, but it would be at least 15dT and would cost far too much to just blow up!

 

[Supplement Four]

The why not probably revolves around why you can put a jump drive in a missile but not in a small craft.

I was thinking that myself. It'd have to be a pretty good sized missile, and pretty damn sophisticated, too.

I guess I'd be on the "against" side of the argument, then.

I need to read Leviathan. I understand there's some jump torps in there. I wonder if they're justified or if they're just mentioned. My guess would be Leviathan was written before JTorps were removed from the LBBs.

 

[rust]

Message Jump Drones are possible in my setting, but they are extremely ex-
pensive and very, very rare.

Many colonies purchase one or two of such jump drones as a means to "cry
for help" during the absence of any jump ships in their systems, and in rare
cases the drones are used to transport small but vital goods (e.g. pharmaceu-
ticals, life support spare parts, etc.).

A jump drone is aimed at the star of a system, drops out of jump space any-
where near the star's 100 D limit, broadcasts an emergecy signal, and is then
(hopefully) picked up by whoever is near.
A jump drone can only make one single jump, then its drive is burned out.

While it would theoretically be possible to build small craft with jump drives in
my setting, these drives would not be large enough to have the necessary
shielding, and as a result any living being on board of the small craft during
the jump would be killed.

I introduced the jump drones into my setting from the Expendables RPG, be-
cause they are a quite useful adventure design tool.

 

[Supplement Four]

I introduced the jump drones into my setting from the Expendables RPG, be-
cause they are a quite useful adventure design tool.

I think JTorps are cool, and I understand where you're coming from. I think they'd be neat too use.

But, MTU is closely cannocal (at least, my interpretation of the OTU), and I don't think I'd allow them in my game. I can't justify the size.

If I did allow a JTorp, it'd be a very expensive, very large (100 dton) vessel, even if it wasn't manned.

It'd have a heck of an AI aboard, too. Maybe some evac couches. Maybe carry a bunch of low berth pods.

That's how I'd do it. They'd be as expensive as a starship--probably more so, given that they are unmanned.

Which would be why they aren't used very often. I mean, why have a JTorp like that when a ship would do nicely? JTorps would only be useful to low Tech worlds where starship pilots are non-existent. If there's a starport on your world, then there's probably a pilot somewhere. But, due to pop considerations and Class X starports, maybe a use for the JTorp would be found...but then, we've got a huge expense here, too. With low pop and low tech, usually, there's no money either.

So, I think, IMTU, JTorps are possible, under the conditions I've laid out here, but they're not useful. They're rare. They're a technology that was too late/too expensive for its time.

But, if you go into a bar, you'll find at least one old crusty starship captain who has run into one. Or, at least, that's what he says.

JTorps are so rare that, in some systems, they're myth.

 

[mike wightman]

The relevant section of original CT LBB2 reads:

Other types of missiles are possible (for example, jump capable message torpedoes, or bombs for attacks against planetary surfaces), but such require either specific alterations to ordinary torpedoes, or location of an arms supplier who deals in such items. Specific attributes of such non-standard missiles are the realm of the referee.

 

[rust]

JTorps are so rare that, in some systems, they're myth.

Exactly, in my setting only new colonies which do not have their own star-
ships, and which are rarely visited by free traders or supply ships, buy them
as a kind of "life insurance" for extreme emergencies, and they sell them as
soon as they can afford to buy, man and maintain a ship.

Away from the frontier, those drones are almost completely unknown, becau-
se there courier ships do the job, and they do it much better.

 

[casquilho]

The relevant section of original CT LBB2 reads:
Quote:
Other types of missiles are possible (for example, jump capable message torpedoes, or bombs for attacks against planetary surfaces), but such require either specific alterations to ordinary torpedoes, or location of an arms supplier who deals in such items. Specific attributes of such non-standard missiles are the realm of the referee.

You have to love the days when RPG designers thought the GMs were smart enough to do some of the creations etc on their own. Some of the rules sets and stuff I read now seems like they think I need everything spoon fed to me.

Daniel

 

[sfchbryan]

You have to love the days when RPG designers thought the GMs were smart enough to do some of the creations etc on their own. Some of the rules sets and stuff I read now seems like they think I need everything spoon fed to me.

Daniel

That is why I prefer rulesets from my youth. I have an imagination & I know how to use it.

Rulesets today go way too deep into the weeds.

 

[Supplement Four]

Rulesets today go way too deep into the weeds.

Agreed.

But, I wonder if today's gamers have been programmed to expect, nay, require, spoonfeeding.

I sometimes think they are.

But...when you're talking about an adventure, I still like it spoonfed to me. I want the whole enchilada. I'll change what I want. But, the more complete the adventure the better. Saves me a lot of time. Plus, it's always easier to edit than it is to create from scratch.

 

[Icosahedron]

You might find my rule useful for your Jump torps/drones.

I decided that although Jump Drives couldn't be designed for Small Craft, and the 2dT drive for the 100dT hull remained the smallest possible, I saw no reason why Small Craft couldn't be designed around that drive, or alternatively, fit the drive as a custom retrofit into an existing Small Craft.
The 2dT Jump Drive would retain its original power requirements, fuel consumption, etc. but it could be shoehorned into a smaller hull if required.

This makes a 15dT hull the smallest Jump capable vessel, with 2dT for the Drive, 10dT for its fuel, 1dT for a power plant, 1dT for power plant fuel, and 1dT for a computer to make it all work. The computer could also carry a message. The basic device could have a 5dT cargo module attached and is reuseable, though it would have to be collected.

I also ruled that any persons travelling in Jump Boats had to use 4dT starship cabins rather than 2dT Small Craft cabins, but it allows for interstellar cabin boats and lifeboats at around 25-30dT.

I don't mind whether I'm fed with a lot of data or very little. Either way, I just take what I think is useful, discard the rest and fill in the gaps with house rules.