RULES

[Solo]

Alright, let's start a war.

I think the rules need to be completely changed. As wizards attempted to do with D&D3e (I won't argue success here) Traveller needs to be reworked to meet a more modern standard.

One of things I hate about GT is that the GURPS rules are outdated and cumbersome. Traveller needs (yes I'm going to say it) needs to be more like a White Wolf game than a game originally produced 20 years ago.

Blow it up from the foundation and make it better!

Just an Opinion
Sherm

 

[William]

Shrug, I suppose you can make the argument. But if WW is what you see as an improvement,
I'd say you need to get out a play a few more games.

Check out Hero Wars or Big Eyes Small Mouth for interesting takes on alternative systems.

Me? MT. Reprint the rules sans background and with errata and you have the best generic RPG ever written.

Nothing beats the simplicity if 2D6 and MT tasks.

as always, YMMV.

William

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solo:
Alright, let's start a war.
(snip)
Blow it up from the foundation and make it better!

Just an Opinion
Sherm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solo:
Alright, let's start a war.

Traveller needs (yes I'm going to say it) needs to be more like a White Wolf game....

Sherm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm.... More like a WW game....

I've got it Scout: The Exploring!

Soon to be followed by Noble: The Mooting and Navy: The Manuevering. Perhaps Vargr: The Pirating followed by Droyne: The Casteing.

Marines: The Grunting!

On a more serious note. How did you feel about T4. Last I heard that was still the basis for the quickly acheiving vaporware status T5 project. Perhaps you might want to push for that rule set. Barring that T20 should be coming out sometime in the not too distant future (though they've already missed their target date on that)

------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 07 December 2001).]

 

[Mused]

White Wolf has lousy mechanics.

How about the Icon system from Last Unicorn (they did Star Trek RPG)

Traveller is not about pretension, unlike WW. You note that D&D3E is a smoothing and compiling of what stood before, not a new system. Maybe what Traveller needs is a thorough rehash of CT, a look at its strong points, an honest assesment of its weak. The answer is not to dump the core, but rather make the core work better by getting rid of what is encumbering it.

CharGen: Book 4/5/6/7 with more flavour
WorldGen: Needs work, a LOT of work
Psi: pretty good as is
Combat: Striker/AHL with a touch of MT
Experience: T4
Starships: Book 5 with tweaks from T4
Mass Combat: Book 4 with adjustments
Critters: Needs a heap of work
Adventures: some samples would be nice, though not the tired old "fight the bureaucracy" one
Art: Yes (flavour matters more than looks) but not ugly Foss stuff
Background: HEAPS AND HEAPS
Aliens: use DGP alien modules as ideal
Flavour: BOO-YAH! Things like the Starship Operators' Manual, the GT single world modules

Just an opinion.

 

[Ron]

I understand that Sherm is evaluating GURPS: Traveller complexity. Yes, GT is a complex and quite cumbersome set ot rules. However, this is not true to Classic Traveller and its derived editions, such as Megatraveller and T4. I believe that those rules are quite simple and powerful. I am satisfied with the idea that T5 will be based in those set of rules. Perhaps you right in the fact that some WW writting style may be benifical to won more players, but I'm not sure.

 

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mused:

CharGen: Book 4/5/6/7 with more flavour
Psi: pretty good as is
Experience: T4
Adventures: some samples would be nice, though not the tired old "fight the bureaucracy" one
Art: Yes (flavour matters more than looks) but not ugly Foss stuff
Background: HEAPS AND HEAPS
Aliens: use DGP alien modules as ideal
Flavour: BOO-YAH! Things like the Starship Operators' Manual, the GT single world modules
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We agree in al these, however...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mused:

WorldGen: Needs work, a LOT of work
Combat: Striker/AHL with a touch of MT
Critters: Needs a heap of work
Starships: Book 5 with tweaks from T4
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that Traveller world generation is fantastic is quite simple and and produces a lot of variety. I think that Scouts turned it too complicated, and ever additional tweaking, such as GURPS: First In, made it even worse. I don't need an astronomical/sociological guide, just some easy to go tables.

I never had a chance to examine AHL, but I see no need to include Striker complicated rules in the game. MT is not bad, but the damage system is not easily memorised, and the interruptions are painful. I would rather stick with T4.

Traveller critters rules are the most original roleplaying game rules for monsters I ever seen. And they make sense! What else you want?

I can go with High Guard, it is a good system to deal with space combat and to design ships. However, in terms of designing ships, I would rather stay with Book 2, which is even simpler and still offer all statistics we may need in a roleplaying game. Perhaps it could be enhanced with some of the extra options available in HG and further editions.

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 08 December 2001).]

 

[Solo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
I think that Traveller world generation is fantastic is quite simple and and produces a lot of variety. I think that Scouts turned it too complicated, and ever additional tweaking, such as GURPS: First In, made it even worse. I don't need an astronomical/sociological guide, just some easy to go tables.

I never had a chance to examine AHL, but I see no need to include Striker complicated rules in the game. MT is not bad, but the damage system is not easily memorised, and the interruptions are painful. I would rather stick with T4.

Traveller critters rules are the most original roleplaying game rules for monsters I ever seen. And they make sense! What else you want?

I can go with High Guard, it is a good system to deal with space combat and to design ships. However, in terms of designing ships, I would rather stay with Book 2, which is even simpler and still offer all statistics we may need in a roleplaying game. Perhaps it could be enhanced with some of the extra options available in HG and further editions.

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 08 December 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Solo]

Well the WW thing certainly got things going

First, I've got dozens of different rule systems on my shelf. From the elegant Castle Falkenstein to the nearly unusable (IMHO) chivalry & sorcery rules.

I'm not attempting to argue the quality of the WW rules. Only that they and other modern RPG's represent a leap forward in the design of RPG rules.

As far as the T4 rules went. I felt they were horrible. Not so much as the actual rules but how they were presented in the book. I have never finished reading the book because of the difficulty in slogging through the badly written and edited material. (Not to mention the weak layout)

Any system that uses only random die rolls on a seemingly endless list of charts to me needs to be reworked. Yes Traveller was simple and easy (except TNE) but in many ways it was too simple.

ON THE OTHER HAND. The basic resolution system used in say 2300AD (same as TNE, I don't remember...) wasn't bad. Though the character generation system was.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Traveller universe. I just want to see it updated to the 21st Century. ;-}

ps. Vapor Ware? Is the whole T5 resurrection thing dead?

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solo:


ps. Vapor Ware? Is the whole T5 resurrection thing dead?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to think not. However it still doesn't have a release date and it's been quite a while since Marc (or any other sophont in the know) has said anything about it here.



------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

 

[J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
I can go with High Guard, it is a good system to deal with space combat and to design ships. However, in terms of designing ships, I would rather stay with Book 2, which is even simpler and still offer all statistics we may need in a roleplaying game. Perhaps it could be enhanced with some of the extra options available in HG and further editions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rather than using Book 2, how about creating a simplified version of HG. Remove the screens bays, spinal mounts, armor and restrict the whole thing to one tech level. The result is a simple design sequence that is easy to use and is fully compatible with High Guard.

You can then reprint High Guard, revised of course, as an extension to the basic T5 system.

J.

 

[Vargas]

I had a much longer post in mind until I realized that what I was really going to say was "CT with a task system". OK, I'd like a simplified, dare I say it, abstract, space combat system. Thanks.

 

[Vargas]

I had a much longer post in mind until I realized that what I was really going to say was "CT with a task system".
OK, I'd like a simplified, dare I say it, abstract, space combat system too. Thanks.

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vargas:
I had a much longer post in mind until I realized that what I was really going to say was "CT with a task system". OK, I'd like a simplified, dare I say it, abstract, space combat system. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, "CT with a task system" is exactly what T4 was supposed to have been. Only problem is that the task system they chose was a turkey. That, and they let the FF&S partisans talk them into including it as the craft design system. And then there's the all-around wretched layout, editing, and production. But at the start the idea was definitely "CT with a task system."

Which is why my prefered shorthand is "MT without the errata or setting." Not a perfect match, but I still think MT's fundamentals were about 80% of the way towards "the perfect Traveller ruleset" and almost every 'improvement' we've seen since has been in the wrong direction.

 

[Vargas]

I never saw T4 except to glance briefly at it in a store a few times so I can't really comment. With all due respect, the MT ship building and, to a lesser extent, combat systems are not things I want to see repeated. While Book 2/HG could be improved upon, the MT and beyond ship design systems would baffle Stephen Hawking.

But hey, it could be just me

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vargas:
I never saw T4 except to glance briefly at it in a store a few times so I can't really comment. With all due respect, the MT ship building and, to a lesser extent, combat systems are not things I want to see repeated. While Book 2/HG could be improved upon, the MT and beyond ship design systems would baffle Stephen Hawking.

But hey, it could be just me

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, you're exactly right. I claimed MT is 80% of the way there; IMO 15 of that remaining 20% is in combat and craft design (with the other 5% being miscellaneous updating and fiddling throughout the rest of the system).

MT combat is essentially Striker/AHL with a few weird twists (Interrupts, the return of Range Bands, seperated damage/penetration, 3 different damage/hit point systems). For my house rules I've dropped all of those and returned to the original CT versions (modified/updated slightly).

Craft Design I'm a little happier with, because I like the notion of a single design system for everything from a grav-bike to a battleship, but I definitely think there need to be much better examples (that are actually correct per the rules!) and a simple-alternative modular 'Book 2'-style system for folks who want to rough out a vehicle on the go without having to break out a spreadsheet. As long as the modules are derived from and compatible with the gearhead system, there should be no reason for most of us to ever have to even look at the complex version.

But, really, other than those two areas I think every other aspect of the MT system (char-gen, task system, improvement, worlds, encounters, animals, interpersonal relations, trade, research, etc.) is at least as good as, if not significantly better than, every other version of Traveller to date (CT, TNE, T4, T4.1) and should be retained as the baseline for any future edition of 'real' Traveller (i.e. not GT, T20, FUDGE Traveller, or whatever).

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:

No, you're exactly right. I claimed MT is 80% of the way there; IMO 15 of that remaining 20% is in combat and craft design (with the other 5% being miscellaneous updating and fiddling throughout the rest of the system).

MT combat is essentially Striker/AHL with a few weird twists (Interrupts, the return of Range Bands, seperated damage/penetration, 3 different damage/hit point systems). For my house rules I've dropped all of those and returned to the original CT versions (modified/updated slightly).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, mostly. I feel that MT is the ultimate expression to date of the CT rules. But it needs a bit of a facelift, too, to survive in themodern environment. T4's 1 skill per year was a good step. Putting armor volume back in would also be good (Striker did, MT didn't). Changing to an intiative system (with interrupts possible) would also be good.

But the core of MT was excellent (once errattaed to correct typos).

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mused:
White Wolf has lousy mechanics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hardly. Just lots of setting specific C**p that needent be there.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Traveller is not about pretension, unlike WW. You note that D&D3E is a smoothing and compiling of what stood before, not a new system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, Hardly.

3E is a wholly different game engine, designed for using the same core stats, similar spells and the same settings. It plays differently. Very differently. It has very different CG mechanics and combat mechanics. It has a consitent skill use mechanic. It is like TNE vs CT: not the same rules at all, just two that can (kind of) do the same thing and use the same labels.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Maybe what Traveller needs is a thorough rehash of CT, a look at its strong points, an honest assesment of its weak. The answer is not to dump the core, but rather make the core work better by getting rid of what is encumbering it.
Just an opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What it needs is a thoroughly unencumbered rework. Not a "What worked before", but a "Here is how to do it simply and easily." In fact, I'd not mind a more WW approach to CG.

T4 felt constrained by it's own inheritances.

While I WOULD LOVE a MT based engine, or at least one that keeps the integrated design sequences, but doesn't require a scientific calculator, it might not be the right approach to modern gamers.

Facelifts fail. 3E is succeeding because it isn't a facelift, but a wholly different engine designed for modern gaming syles.

in 22 years of gaming, not only has my style changed, but so has that of high schoolers (How they play now is NOT how we played then, nor is it how My group plays now).

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Mused]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aramis:
What it needs is a thoroughly unencumbered rework. Not a "What worked before", but a "Here is how to do it simply and easily." In fact, I'd not mind a more WW approach to CG.

T4 felt constrained by it's own inheritances.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T4 was Traveller 1.2 (Books 4+ are 1.1), the DGP task system was 2.0, MT was Traveller 2.1 (2.2 with Errata) and House System was 3.0

D&D3E took the basic core of D&D2E and added the stuff people wanted (and frequently added anyway) and reduced the effect of levels in favour of skills (and more customizing for characters)

The original Vampire was good but I have HATED the reworks. Specific mechanics complainst are not the premise of this list so I will not go into a rant on it.

Traveller, the raison d'etre of this list, is primarily background not mechanics.
As long as the mechanics reflect the background I don't care all that much. The problem is that we all see a different Traveller. Some here see goofy space opera (star wars), some see space opera (star trek), some see soap opera in space (This is closest to my ideal, babylon five), others see D&D in space, and so on. For all I know there may be groups that play opera in space (Traveller: The Musical)
I guess the ideal is to get the best middle ground. But that is hard when you have people who practically say stuff to the effect of "print anything to do with new era and I will personally destroy your printer" and "if you use anything but CT, you are UNCLEAN!"
Never mind getting into GURPS!
None of you will ever be happy because you aren't writing it. Everyone on this list seems to think (myself as well) that Traveller would be perfect and outsell D&D3E and Pokemon cards combined if only our suggestions were followed.
Ain't gonna happen.
Take a look at MJD. He wanted to be a big player so he took the time and wrote things (despite being as busy as all get out with his real world job). There are other people I know who have been published in Traveller and it is the same thing.
You have an idea? Submit it. If MJD or MM like it, you get bragging rights.

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mused:
T4 was Traveller 1.2 (Books 4+ are 1.1), the DGP task system was 2.0, MT was Traveller 2.1 (2.2 with Errata) and House System was 3.0

D&D3E took the basic core of D&D2E and added the stuff people wanted (and frequently added anyway) and reduced the effect of levels in favour of skills (and more customizing for characters)

The original Vampire was good but I have HATED the reworks. Specific mechanics complainst are not the premise of this list so I will not go into a rant on it.

Traveller, the raison d'etre of this list, is primarily background not mechanics.
As long as the mechanics reflect the background I don't care all that much. The problem is that we all see a different Traveller. Some here see goofy space opera (star wars), some see space opera (star trek), some see soap opera in space (This is closest to my ideal, babylon five), others see D&D in space, and so on. For all I know there may be groups that play opera in space (Traveller: The Musical)
I guess the ideal is to get the best middle ground. But that is hard when you have people who practically say stuff to the effect of "print anything to do with new era and I will personally destroy your printer" and "if you use anything but CT, you are UNCLEAN!"
Never mind getting into GURPS!
None of you will ever be happy because you aren't writing it. Everyone on this list seems to think (myself as well) that Traveller would be perfect and outsell D&D3E and Pokemon cards combined if only our suggestions were followed.
Ain't gonna happen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Damned Negativism here. A truly perfect system WOULD outsell 3E. But perfefction is very subjective...


T4 was less CT than MT; it was a poorly edited product that was another "20 year old approach".

Traveller is, to many, as much a set of mechanics as a setting. Some even see it more as mechanics than setting. MT was the first edition tied to a setting. To me, CT & MT are rules sets.

I'd love to see MT go back into print, with any setting.

But, what I was trying to say is: ANY CT-REHASH IS NOT A MODERN GAME! And, unless a modern traveller is done, from the groud up without concern for "What came before" mechanically, the system mechanics will continue to be "Dated". Likewise, GURPS is so complex as to be unplayable. Modern games drive towards mechanical simplicity (except 3E, which really is 10 years late...) in the core rules.

Traveller Rules post CT have NEVER been simple. Elegant, perhaps. but not simple. and there is a difference. Simplicity is a key point in the major game engines out there: 3E, WW's Storyteller, RTG's Interlock. The core of each engine is simple. Some expressions get really convoluted....

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[mjwest]

OK, I'll bite: What, as exactly as possible, is meant by a "modern" engine. What makes a "modern" RPG engine modern and what makes CT (or MT, for that matter) "old"?

I can see where CT got so overtaken by all of the additions that it became overgrown and inconsistent. But from what I remember, MT was pretty consistent, and went to pretty extreme lengths to make sure stuff actually fit together. What about MT (besides the starship construction) was too complex, or was not simple enough?

I am not trying to be a jerk here. I am actually curious as to what features a "modern" RPG engine should have, and, by extension, what features it should *not* have.