PinkSplice
SOC-12
Please explain to me what would attract a new player to T^20, the setting aside, instead of the Star Wars RPG from WOTC.
Wally.
Wally.
T^20? Or Star Wars D20?
- Thread starter PinkSplice
- Start date
PinkSplice
SOC-12
No Ewoks. Good. No JarJar- excellent.
Now tell me what, aside from the setting of Traveller v. Star Wars, would cause me to select T^20, rather than SW D20? What can you offer that would be unique (aside from the Traveller setting)?
Wally.
Now tell me what, aside from the setting of Traveller v. Star Wars, would cause me to select T^20, rather than SW D20? What can you offer that would be unique (aside from the Traveller setting)?
Wally.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Hehe sorry I had to do that (should have added Jar-Jar, but I try to forget that movie as much as possible...)
T20 vs Star Wars...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Harder Science-Fiction
<LI> A fully developed and realized universe
<LI> Good ship design system
<LI> Starship Combat
<LI> Deadlier combat
<LI> Universe development
<LI> Vehicle design
[/list]
That's off the top of my head.
There are a lot of folks (of course nowhere near all of them) who would more interested in playing in a non-Star Wars sci-fi campaign. Myself, while I love the Star Wars stuff (seen all the movies, read all the books), I don't want to play it. The same would go for a Star Trek universe. I am a big ST fan, but the Federation seems kind of a dull place for adventuring to me...I wouldn't want to play a Starfleeter, too many rules and regs to follow!
Hunter
T20 vs Star Wars...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Harder Science-Fiction
<LI> A fully developed and realized universe
<LI> Good ship design system
<LI> Starship Combat
<LI> Deadlier combat
<LI> Universe development
<LI> Vehicle design
[/list]
That's off the top of my head.
There are a lot of folks (of course nowhere near all of them) who would more interested in playing in a non-Star Wars sci-fi campaign. Myself, while I love the Star Wars stuff (seen all the movies, read all the books), I don't want to play it. The same would go for a Star Trek universe. I am a big ST fan, but the Federation seems kind of a dull place for adventuring to me...I wouldn't want to play a Starfleeter, too many rules and regs to follow!
Hunter
PinkSplice
SOC-12
Ok, Hunter listed his differences:
T20 vs Star Wars...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Harder Science-Fiction
<LI> A fully developed and realized universe
<LI> Good ship design system
<LI> Starship Combat
<LI> Deadlier combat
<LI> Universe development
<LI> Vehicle design
[/list]
Hunter
[/B][/QUOTE]
Harder sci-fi: setting.
Fully developed universe: setting.
Good ship design: system. Good reason. Can be done with High Guard (you've started on that). Next.
Starship combat: system. Good reason (see above). Next.
Deadlier combat: system. Good reason. Next.
Universe development: setting.
Vehicle design: system. Can be a slippery slope. See GURPS.
You've come up with three good reasons. I commend you. But can you get new players to see them? Your marketing and packaging will be critical...and you're up against WOTC. Good luck.
Wally.
T20 vs Star Wars...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Harder Science-Fiction
<LI> A fully developed and realized universe
<LI> Good ship design system
<LI> Starship Combat
<LI> Deadlier combat
<LI> Universe development
<LI> Vehicle design
[/list]
Hunter
[/B][/QUOTE]
Harder sci-fi: setting.
Fully developed universe: setting.
Good ship design: system. Good reason. Can be done with High Guard (you've started on that). Next.
Starship combat: system. Good reason (see above). Next.
Deadlier combat: system. Good reason. Next.
Universe development: setting.
Vehicle design: system. Can be a slippery slope. See GURPS.
You've come up with three good reasons. I commend you. But can you get new players to see them? Your marketing and packaging will be critical...and you're up against WOTC. Good luck.
Wally.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Thanks!
Universe development I don't necessarily see as setting. There are no rules in Star Wars to work up planetary statistics, etc. This I see as a big flaw in ST. Sure the worlds from the movies (and books) we can pretty much detail from the available info and some supposition. But what about all of the other worlds?
Marketing and production I agree are very important. It won't matter one whit how good the rules and setting are if the presentation is lousy.
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter
Universe development I don't necessarily see as setting. There are no rules in Star Wars to work up planetary statistics, etc. This I see as a big flaw in ST. Sure the worlds from the movies (and books) we can pretty much detail from the available info and some supposition. But what about all of the other worlds?
Marketing and production I agree are very important. It won't matter one whit how good the rules and setting are if the presentation is lousy.
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Thanks!
Universe development I don't necessarily see as setting. There are no rules in Star Wars to work up planetary statistics, etc. This I see as a big flaw in ST. Sure the worlds from the movies (and books) we can pretty much detail from the available info and some supposition. But what about all of the other worlds?
[snip]
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Setting Development" issue... if T20 can encapsulate basically all the things CT did, but more integrated, I'll run it. (IE, I want to have a clear, system specific, means of determining how badly a PC's 12.7mm can hurt their airraft, thier APC, and their starship; conversely, how much damage does a sandcaster do to the PC's. I want to have a vague idea how much force a world can bring to bear (All answered for me in MT, counting 3core plus Ref's Companion). I want a good, newtonian-influenced space combat system.
Being able to roll up a subsector is part of Traveller (Every edition save GT had that as part of the core rules, and again, aside from GT, all editions used the same data, mechanics, and format).
But, above all else, I want enough introduction to be able to have SOMEONE ELSE REFEREE from the t20 Book alone!!!! Ive not been a player in over a decade; I've GM'd almost all the time.
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
Thanks!
Universe development I don't necessarily see as setting. There are no rules in Star Wars to work up planetary statistics, etc. This I see as a big flaw in ST. Sure the worlds from the movies (and books) we can pretty much detail from the available info and some supposition. But what about all of the other worlds?
[snip]
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Setting Development" issue... if T20 can encapsulate basically all the things CT did, but more integrated, I'll run it. (IE, I want to have a clear, system specific, means of determining how badly a PC's 12.7mm can hurt their airraft, thier APC, and their starship; conversely, how much damage does a sandcaster do to the PC's. I want to have a vague idea how much force a world can bring to bear (All answered for me in MT, counting 3core plus Ref's Companion). I want a good, newtonian-influenced space combat system.
Being able to roll up a subsector is part of Traveller (Every edition save GT had that as part of the core rules, and again, aside from GT, all editions used the same data, mechanics, and format).
But, above all else, I want enough introduction to be able to have SOMEONE ELSE REFEREE from the t20 Book alone!!!! Ive not been a player in over a decade; I've GM'd almost all the time.
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Thanks!
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would like to see a hardback, even if it is only an initial limited run. I always prefer them for heft value and durability. Plus, most of the d20 players are used to seeing hardbacks. Softbacks may just put off the people you're targetting as your customers!
Cheers
Paul Bendall
Thanks!
While it is unlikely that T20 will be released in hardback (though we are looking into this as a possibility at least on the initial print run), it will be up to the current standards of industry production.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would like to see a hardback, even if it is only an initial limited run. I always prefer them for heft value and durability. Plus, most of the d20 players are used to seeing hardbacks. Softbacks may just put off the people you're targetting as your customers!
Cheers
Paul Bendall
The Shoveller
SOC-9
I have to agree on the need for hardbacked books. I'm not going to comment on the durability issues [some of these hardbacks fall apart way too quickly]. I think there are too many subconscious positives about a hardback core rulebook. It seems to say, "This is a major league system." Paperback core books seem minor league. There have been a lot of bad games [the entire White Wolf line, for example] that have gained immediate seeming respectablity solely because of their release in hardback. Their Sword and Sorcery D20 books are almost treated as D&D3e canon by the gaming public, even though there are horrible errors throughout and no color printing whatsoever.
I think the investment in hardback would be worthwhile for you guys.
I think the investment in hardback would be worthwhile for you guys.
PinkSplice
SOC-12
Yes, I agree. A hardback version would be an excellent idea. The physical quality of the book must be very high to give it at least a fighting chance against SW D20.
Wally.
Wally.
ShaneHenry
SOC-1
>>Traveller is related to the real world, it's a proposed future. Earth doesn't exist in SW. It does in Traveller. Maybe it's just me, but I have this thing for my home planet.<<
Actually...Earth *does* exist in the Star Wars Universe...it's just that it exists a long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far away
. However, in this distant future, there *is* one instance of contact between the races of the Star Wars galaxy, and the people of Earth. Namely, a lone member of an obscure race (who are known to have a seat in the Republic-Era Galactic Senate) will be rescued by a young human boy*...
Shane
*As detailed in 'E.T.' and its book sequel 'The Green Planet'.
Actually...Earth *does* exist in the Star Wars Universe...it's just that it exists a long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far away
. However, in this distant future, there *is* one instance of contact between the races of the Star Wars galaxy, and the people of Earth. Namely, a lone member of an obscure race (who are known to have a seat in the Republic-Era Galactic Senate) will be rescued by a young human boy*...Shane
*As detailed in 'E.T.' and its book sequel 'The Green Planet'
.R Sinclair
SOC-1
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PinkSplice:
Please explain to me what would attract a new player to T^20, the setting aside, instead of the Star Wars RPG from WOTC.
Wally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Before I start, let me point out that I am NOT bashing SWd20, I do like the system and enjoy playing/running it.
In answering what would attract a new player to T20 as opposed to the SWRPG, I have to dispute the idea that "Hard SF" is just "setting". I think there is a bit of game system mixed up in that.
Other than what was previously mentioned, the primary thing that I see Traveller offering that Star Wars does not lies in the area of classes. What Star Wars gives us as far as classes go are pretty good (though I have design concerns in this regard).
But the way the classes are put together are not necessarily appropriate to 'Hard SF'.
As we look through Classic Traveller, Mega Traveller, Traveller TNE and Gurps Traveller, we see character definitions that do not directly fit in with the Star Wars system, especially the way the classes are designed.
Here are the existing SW classes, and comments that I see (leaving out the Force users for obvious reasons).
Fringer - uh, ok, I can see that one. However, even with the adaptive learning abilities, it is an odd collection of skills and special abilities. Furthermore, jury-rig is kinda strange in that only the Fringer has it, not Scoundrel. To be truthful, this looks like a class that answers the question "what were Luke and Anakin before becoming Jedi".
Noble - I have some issues with this one in SW itself. I don't like the "Call in a Favor" feature. It somewhat works for Star Wars in focusing more on action but I think in a Hard-SF campaign, this doesn't work quite as well. "Call in a Favor" is something you do when, through role-playing, you've caused someone to be in some way indebted to you.
Scoundrel - This is the equivalent of the DnD Rogue. No MAJOR problem here. But, "Better Luck than Good" is a tailoring for SW that doesn't fit as well into Traveller. This is a cinematic quality that T20 shouldn't have. Sneak attack works, but I don't see everyone who takes scoundrel really having this. I have an Engineer in the campaign that I am running who wouldn't have that ability in combat, but who is taking scoundrel because it is the only class that offers skills condusive to being an engineer.
Scout - That fits, however, I don't see Chewbacca being one as he is described in the back of the book.
Soldier - fine, that translates with no problem. It is basically the fighter from DnD.
In T20, a "Technician" class would be appropriate (ie someone who is strictly an Engineer, scientist or Medical person) but it is not as important in Star Wars (yes, I know there are bunches who would disagree with me on that one, but that is way OT) and so it was not included. In fact, in SWd20, repair is applied to everything from blasters to Star Destroyer engines. Cinematically, this makes sense. However, I think we can all agree that fixing a hand-held weapon is very different from fixing a fusion reactor which is different from fixing a repulsorlift (SW for anti-grav). This should be modeled more appropriately in T20. A "Tech" (however it would work) could be applied to handle medical needs, to repairing this that and the other, or even computer hacking. In what I describe, I suppose the Tech would have to choose an area of application since someone who is good at fixing humans shouldn't have equal access to fixing various machines. I see something sorta like the Psion in DnD chooses what kind they want to be even though it fits under one class.
What about a "Trader" class? He might not fit scoundrel or noble even though those would be the two closest!
I would not necessarily want to give a T20 noble the same skill set as a SWd20 noble. In fact, while this hasn't been previously modelled in Trav, I think that the noble should be allowed a skill set that would reflect different philosphies of families, however, I digress.
Please explain to me what would attract a new player to T^20, the setting aside, instead of the Star Wars RPG from WOTC.
Wally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Before I start, let me point out that I am NOT bashing SWd20, I do like the system and enjoy playing/running it.
In answering what would attract a new player to T20 as opposed to the SWRPG, I have to dispute the idea that "Hard SF" is just "setting". I think there is a bit of game system mixed up in that.
Other than what was previously mentioned, the primary thing that I see Traveller offering that Star Wars does not lies in the area of classes. What Star Wars gives us as far as classes go are pretty good (though I have design concerns in this regard).
But the way the classes are put together are not necessarily appropriate to 'Hard SF'.
As we look through Classic Traveller, Mega Traveller, Traveller TNE and Gurps Traveller, we see character definitions that do not directly fit in with the Star Wars system, especially the way the classes are designed.
Here are the existing SW classes, and comments that I see (leaving out the Force users for obvious reasons).
Fringer - uh, ok, I can see that one. However, even with the adaptive learning abilities, it is an odd collection of skills and special abilities. Furthermore, jury-rig is kinda strange in that only the Fringer has it, not Scoundrel. To be truthful, this looks like a class that answers the question "what were Luke and Anakin before becoming Jedi".
Noble - I have some issues with this one in SW itself. I don't like the "Call in a Favor" feature. It somewhat works for Star Wars in focusing more on action but I think in a Hard-SF campaign, this doesn't work quite as well. "Call in a Favor" is something you do when, through role-playing, you've caused someone to be in some way indebted to you.
Scoundrel - This is the equivalent of the DnD Rogue. No MAJOR problem here. But, "Better Luck than Good" is a tailoring for SW that doesn't fit as well into Traveller. This is a cinematic quality that T20 shouldn't have. Sneak attack works, but I don't see everyone who takes scoundrel really having this. I have an Engineer in the campaign that I am running who wouldn't have that ability in combat, but who is taking scoundrel because it is the only class that offers skills condusive to being an engineer.
Scout - That fits, however, I don't see Chewbacca being one as he is described in the back of the book.
Soldier - fine, that translates with no problem. It is basically the fighter from DnD.
In T20, a "Technician" class would be appropriate (ie someone who is strictly an Engineer, scientist or Medical person) but it is not as important in Star Wars (yes, I know there are bunches who would disagree with me on that one, but that is way OT) and so it was not included. In fact, in SWd20, repair is applied to everything from blasters to Star Destroyer engines. Cinematically, this makes sense. However, I think we can all agree that fixing a hand-held weapon is very different from fixing a fusion reactor which is different from fixing a repulsorlift (SW for anti-grav). This should be modeled more appropriately in T20. A "Tech" (however it would work) could be applied to handle medical needs, to repairing this that and the other, or even computer hacking. In what I describe, I suppose the Tech would have to choose an area of application since someone who is good at fixing humans shouldn't have equal access to fixing various machines. I see something sorta like the Psion in DnD chooses what kind they want to be even though it fits under one class.
What about a "Trader" class? He might not fit scoundrel or noble even though those would be the two closest!
I would not necessarily want to give a T20 noble the same skill set as a SWd20 noble. In fact, while this hasn't been previously modelled in Trav, I think that the noble should be allowed a skill set that would reflect different philosphies of families, however, I digress.
ShaneHenry
SOC-1
>>What about a "Trader" class? He might not fit scoundrel or noble even though those would be the two closest!<<
Perhaps Traveller should have a Trader class, but within the Star Wars paradigm, the Noble class is intended to be more inclusive than its name would suggest. Rather than only representing 'nobility' (ie. the Princess Leia archetype), it can also represent any character who uses...
'...their intelligence and natural charisma to make their way in the galaxy. From true royalty to elected officials, military commanders to crime lords, traders, merchants, ambassadors, holovid stars, and influential corporate magnates...' (p42 SWRPG)
For gamemaster characters, there's also the Diplomat class, most of whom are 'minor functionaries or independent businessmen...local politicians, astute barristers, and canny merchants'. (p215)
Though I know little about Traveller, I'm very familiar with all the D20 games. I'll almost certainly buy T20 when it comes out, and if I like it, I'll eventually get around to buying older Traveller continuity/setting-related material. As far as T20 goes, remember that the classes of a D20 game should represent the archetypes that best define *that particular game and setting*. I mean, theoretically, you could have straight-outta-D&D Barbarians, Bards, and Druids (or Deadlands Gunslingers, Hucksters, and Braves)...on some backwater planets in the Traveller or Star Wars Universes -- but there's no reason to try to model them in the T20 or SW rulebooks, since they're not an archetype in either setting (though a GM could easily insert any D20 class in his home campaign). SW D20's classes are, rightly I believe, drawn directly from the archetypes of that setting (not the other way around). So, the Noble exists because of Leia, Fringer because of young Luke/Anakin, Scoundrel: Han/Lando, Jedi Guardian: Luke/Vader/Obi-Wan, Jedi Consular: Yoda/Palpatine, etc.). SW D20 isn't a D&D clone, nor even a generic sci-fi ideal. If T20 tries to closely model other D20 games' classes (SWD20 is obviously the closest match), then you'll end up with something entirely unsatisfying, like 'The Foundation', a lame D20 superhero game that essentially tries to present a superhero universe using only a few minor modifications to the D&D D20 game -- and includes such incongruous things as Wizards and Sorcerers. On the other hand, if you try to make Traveller too generic, you'll end up with Alternity (which was OK, but...er...generic). I suggest distilling Traveller archetypes which have persisted throughout Traveller's various rules incarnations (and the names of the classes should evoke those archetypes as well). The one nod to the D20 system Traveller should probably make, is that every D20 game thus far has had a skill-master class (D&D Rogue, SW Scoundrel, Deadlands Huckster), and a combat feat-master class (D&D Fighter, SW Soldier, Deadlands Gunslinger). Hopefully we'll end up with a *Traveller* D20 game, not a D&D- or Star Wars clone, nor a generic sci-fi game (though if Traveller's rules additions are good enough, then people will buy it for that use as well). Good luck!
Shane
Perhaps Traveller should have a Trader class, but within the Star Wars paradigm, the Noble class is intended to be more inclusive than its name would suggest. Rather than only representing 'nobility' (ie. the Princess Leia archetype), it can also represent any character who uses...
'...their intelligence and natural charisma to make their way in the galaxy. From true royalty to elected officials, military commanders to crime lords, traders, merchants, ambassadors, holovid stars, and influential corporate magnates...' (p42 SWRPG)
For gamemaster characters, there's also the Diplomat class, most of whom are 'minor functionaries or independent businessmen...local politicians, astute barristers, and canny merchants'. (p215)
Though I know little about Traveller, I'm very familiar with all the D20 games. I'll almost certainly buy T20 when it comes out, and if I like it, I'll eventually get around to buying older Traveller continuity/setting-related material. As far as T20 goes, remember that the classes of a D20 game should represent the archetypes that best define *that particular game and setting*. I mean, theoretically, you could have straight-outta-D&D Barbarians, Bards, and Druids (or Deadlands Gunslingers, Hucksters, and Braves)...on some backwater planets in the Traveller or Star Wars Universes -- but there's no reason to try to model them in the T20 or SW rulebooks, since they're not an archetype in either setting (though a GM could easily insert any D20 class in his home campaign). SW D20's classes are, rightly I believe, drawn directly from the archetypes of that setting (not the other way around). So, the Noble exists because of Leia, Fringer because of young Luke/Anakin, Scoundrel: Han/Lando, Jedi Guardian: Luke/Vader/Obi-Wan, Jedi Consular: Yoda/Palpatine, etc.). SW D20 isn't a D&D clone, nor even a generic sci-fi ideal. If T20 tries to closely model other D20 games' classes (SWD20 is obviously the closest match), then you'll end up with something entirely unsatisfying, like 'The Foundation', a lame D20 superhero game that essentially tries to present a superhero universe using only a few minor modifications to the D&D D20 game -- and includes such incongruous things as Wizards and Sorcerers. On the other hand, if you try to make Traveller too generic, you'll end up with Alternity (which was OK, but...er...generic). I suggest distilling Traveller archetypes which have persisted throughout Traveller's various rules incarnations (and the names of the classes should evoke those archetypes as well). The one nod to the D20 system Traveller should probably make, is that every D20 game thus far has had a skill-master class (D&D Rogue, SW Scoundrel, Deadlands Huckster), and a combat feat-master class (D&D Fighter, SW Soldier, Deadlands Gunslinger). Hopefully we'll end up with a *Traveller* D20 game, not a D&D- or Star Wars clone, nor a generic sci-fi game (though if Traveller's rules additions are good enough, then people will buy it for that use as well). Good luck!
Shane
Well said Shane.
Nice to hear from a non-Traveller person. I know your thoughts reinforce my predjudice that the T20 character classes should have the same names and be modleed on the Traveller careers. It just wouldn't be Traveller withoout Merchants.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
Nice to hear from a non-Traveller person. I know your thoughts reinforce my predjudice that the T20 character classes should have the same names and be modleed on the Traveller careers. It just wouldn't be Traveller withoout Merchants.
------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson
R Sinclair
SOC-1
Excellent response, Shane!
I was pointing out the Trader paradigm on Traveller as opposed to Star Wars. I had forgotten that particular quote which you site; Yes, I concede that in many cases in SW a Noble can be applicable to a trader, though I would maintain that it is not always appropriate. Yes, the Diplomat is very usable in the role you mention, but I was worried about player characters. The NPC classes are a tad weaker than PC classes (though a 20th level NPC class is nothing to sneeze at!)
As far as your discusion of archetypes, I heartily agree! There does need to be a balance between flavor and openness. I wish that had been something I had stated in my ramblings.
As for Star Wars specifically, I agree that the archetypes are cinematically drawn from the movies, I was pointing out design problems a) that do not lend them to Traveller and b) that I actually have design problems with (though to be fair I still really like SWd20 and that part did border on being off topic).
I'll tell you about the Traveller archetypes as I see them (using the careers that the systems use) Navy, Marines, Army, Scouts, and Merchants (according to CT). I think T4 is a somewhat better fit for T20 with Merchant, Navy, Scout, Agent (think law enforcement), Entertainer, Noble, Rogue, Scholar, and Psionicist. TNE had many, many careers that were too specific for this discussion, so I wont mention them. BTW, even though T4 has a Noble, social status is reflected by a specific stat. Admittedly many of these fit "Soldier".
Since you are unfamiliar with Traveller (and forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know), CT - Classic Traveller, T4 - Traveller 4th ed, and TNE - Traveller: The New Era). MT (MegaTraveller) I left out because the main difference between it and CT is the setting (if I remember correctly).
TTFN!
I was pointing out the Trader paradigm on Traveller as opposed to Star Wars. I had forgotten that particular quote which you site; Yes, I concede that in many cases in SW a Noble can be applicable to a trader, though I would maintain that it is not always appropriate. Yes, the Diplomat is very usable in the role you mention, but I was worried about player characters. The NPC classes are a tad weaker than PC classes (though a 20th level NPC class is nothing to sneeze at!)
As far as your discusion of archetypes, I heartily agree! There does need to be a balance between flavor and openness. I wish that had been something I had stated in my ramblings.
As for Star Wars specifically, I agree that the archetypes are cinematically drawn from the movies, I was pointing out design problems a) that do not lend them to Traveller and b) that I actually have design problems with (though to be fair I still really like SWd20 and that part did border on being off topic).
I'll tell you about the Traveller archetypes as I see them (using the careers that the systems use) Navy, Marines, Army, Scouts, and Merchants (according to CT). I think T4 is a somewhat better fit for T20 with Merchant, Navy, Scout, Agent (think law enforcement), Entertainer, Noble, Rogue, Scholar, and Psionicist. TNE had many, many careers that were too specific for this discussion, so I wont mention them. BTW, even though T4 has a Noble, social status is reflected by a specific stat. Admittedly many of these fit "Soldier".
Since you are unfamiliar with Traveller (and forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know), CT - Classic Traveller, T4 - Traveller 4th ed, and TNE - Traveller: The New Era). MT (MegaTraveller) I left out because the main difference between it and CT is the setting (if I remember correctly).
TTFN!
Erifnogard
SOC-1
Just chiming in to endorse the hardback idea, at least for the main book. Hardback covers definitely give the book a more "serious" game feel for some reason.
Will the covers be the traditional black with color stripe?
Will the covers be the traditional black with color stripe?
Excellent points by R Sinclair, being familiar with both game systems, I agree the classes should be based around the old careers. (Especially for those of us who played the older incarnations, it would add a comfortable bit of familiarity.) I do however disagree that "soldier" covers several career paths. I see a difference between Army, Navy, and Marines, though admittedly the difference is primarily in the skill set each focuses on (Army-ground combat, Navy-ship operations, Marines-space combat) and perhaps some of the level benefits (for instance, 7th level Naval characters might gain a feat granting higher social class and a skill focus for any one CHA based skill, while a marine at the same level gains weapon focus:blade of choice). I see no reason to keep the number of classes small, if more classes add flavor to the universe and clearer definition between character types.
My friends and I play D&D3E and SWd20, and have come up with a set of 8 classes for a "generic" Sci-fi d20 game. I thought I would post them here for anyone interested.
1.) Administrator. other names include Director, Leader, Corporate or Nobility.
2.) Rogue. other names include Scoundrel or Fixer.
3.) Technician. for electronics, mechanics, computer or robotics. Your "hard sciences"
4.) Scientist or Doctorate. for medical, physics, history, xenobiology ect. Your "soft sciences".
5.) Enforcer. The soldier, law officer, merc. or solo.
6.) Traveler. This is the trader, explorer or scout.
7.) Outlander. farmer, miner, you basic jack-of-all-trades.
8.) Entertainer. rocker, media, dancer, game show host or even televangelist.
1.) Administrator. other names include Director, Leader, Corporate or Nobility.
2.) Rogue. other names include Scoundrel or Fixer.
3.) Technician. for electronics, mechanics, computer or robotics. Your "hard sciences"
4.) Scientist or Doctorate. for medical, physics, history, xenobiology ect. Your "soft sciences".
5.) Enforcer. The soldier, law officer, merc. or solo.
6.) Traveler. This is the trader, explorer or scout.
7.) Outlander. farmer, miner, you basic jack-of-all-trades.
8.) Entertainer. rocker, media, dancer, game show host or even televangelist.
Also I want to make a comment about how I dislike the Craft and Profession skills in the d20 system. They are never explained very well. You spend skill points on Repair (to repair *anything* btw) so you can repair your starship when it breaks down... but in order to make money repairing other starships you need to spend more skill points on profession: starship repair. correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather spend the points to increase my repair skill.
Knowledge is another one of those skills, but I have less of a problem with it. I just wish they would give more examples for possible knowledge skills instead of the paltry listing they have. I want to know how specific or broad-based I should get.
Just my beef with the d20 system. Otherwise I like it.
Knowledge is another one of those skills, but I have less of a problem with it. I just wish they would give more examples for possible knowledge skills instead of the paltry listing they have. I want to know how specific or broad-based I should get.
Just my beef with the d20 system. Otherwise I like it.
March41: I like your class list (with the minor nitpick about how you're drawing the line between "hard science" and "soft science", which would be a bit off topic ... but I would describe it more as "engineering" vs "academics" ... and I would probably call #4 "Scholar").
(also, for Traveller, I doubt I'd have NPC classes. Cover everything with PC classes, because as many of the old Traveller veterans have said, the setting is more about ordinary people. PC classes vs NPC classes are very much about "epic vs mundane" or "hero vs citizen" type distinctions. For T20, I would make sure that all characters, PC or NPC, are drawn from the same set of classes)
on Repair:
I was thinking about that over the last couple days, and had two thoughts on how to do it:
1) if you keep the "single skill" approach of Star Wars, then I'd go with this: change the "Computer Use" skill to "Use Device" ... so you've now basically got "use" and "repair". Then apply to these groups a collection of Technical Group Proficiency feats (similar to weapon group proficiencies, starship proficiencies, and armor proficencies). So, you've got "use" and/or "repair", and everyone gets some basic tech group ... and can add on more advanced groups that allow them to use "use" and "repair" upon them.
2) The above left a funny taste in my mouth. So I thought maybe it'd be better to parallel the various skills with sub-groups (craft, profession, knowlege). When you pick up a rank of "repair", you have to pick what sub-skill you're actually buying (which would conflict with SW some, but I don't think that's a problem).
(I personally don't have a problem with the profession skill... though I don't find it very useful, but that fits my personality. In your example, it makes perfect sense to me: I'm a very skilled computer systems engineer, but if I were to hire myself out as a consultant tomorrow, I wouldn't have a clue as to what I should charge, or what sorts of tax issues I'd have to deal with, etc. I have lots of "repair(computer)" or "craft(computer) and probably no "profession(computer)". I'm all technician and not even a little bit manager. That's sort of how I view profession. So I could easily see where a character with LOTS of starship repair skill might be completely inept at making money at it. He'd instead go into partnership with someone who handled the profession side of the business, while he did the practical side of the business.)
(also, for Traveller, I doubt I'd have NPC classes. Cover everything with PC classes, because as many of the old Traveller veterans have said, the setting is more about ordinary people. PC classes vs NPC classes are very much about "epic vs mundane" or "hero vs citizen" type distinctions. For T20, I would make sure that all characters, PC or NPC, are drawn from the same set of classes)
on Repair:
I was thinking about that over the last couple days, and had two thoughts on how to do it:
1) if you keep the "single skill" approach of Star Wars, then I'd go with this: change the "Computer Use" skill to "Use Device" ... so you've now basically got "use" and "repair". Then apply to these groups a collection of Technical Group Proficiency feats (similar to weapon group proficiencies, starship proficiencies, and armor proficencies). So, you've got "use" and/or "repair", and everyone gets some basic tech group ... and can add on more advanced groups that allow them to use "use" and "repair" upon them.
2) The above left a funny taste in my mouth. So I thought maybe it'd be better to parallel the various skills with sub-groups (craft, profession, knowlege). When you pick up a rank of "repair", you have to pick what sub-skill you're actually buying (which would conflict with SW some, but I don't think that's a problem).
(I personally don't have a problem with the profession skill... though I don't find it very useful, but that fits my personality. In your example, it makes perfect sense to me: I'm a very skilled computer systems engineer, but if I were to hire myself out as a consultant tomorrow, I wouldn't have a clue as to what I should charge, or what sorts of tax issues I'd have to deal with, etc. I have lots of "repair(computer)" or "craft(computer) and probably no "profession(computer)". I'm all technician and not even a little bit manager. That's sort of how I view profession. So I could easily see where a character with LOTS of starship repair skill might be completely inept at making money at it. He'd instead go into partnership with someone who handled the profession side of the business, while he did the practical side of the business.)
Similar threads
- Article
