T4 gets a bad rap

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Merxiless:
I actually prefer T4's return. It was kind of like a retro..I don't know. A different time, and the art seemed to me to be the remnants of the long night.

Overgrown ruins, crowded, dirty spaceports, with some new shiney tech, as things got back to normal.

True, there was I recall the Indiana-Jones' appeal of resolving mysteries of the Long Night's period (several thousand years) vs. mysteries less than a century (TNE's 1130-1202 collapse/ recovery era).

I like the idea of gaming in different eras of a game universe.

I didn't like TNE or the Virus, but I did respect what they were trying to do. With everything destroyed, only heroes would have the mettle to survive. And they wanted to make the T2K Change from 1.0 to 2.0 to 2.2 complete, so that Twilight players could been enticed, and it was one rules set, with a previously tested combat system.

I have all the books, it's just hard to find players for TNE. T4, somewhat easier, at least, around here.

That was one of the many reasons I liked T20, I could play it in any Time-era of the Imperium, and the 990's outset of the 1st Rim War was but a technological step beyond Milieu 0, where TL14 was the new Imperial zenith, TL-13was the standard, and TL-12 was commonplace.

T4's Milieu 0 had TL-13 the new zenith/ TL-12 the standards, and TL-11 common place.

My current campaign (I game 1/2 weeks on Fridays) is T20 ruleset set in 1210, out in the Wilds along the Reft/ former spinward edge of Dulinor's region, the P-subsector of the former duchy of Cyril.

The highest human-led tech world they've (the players) found so far is TL9, and the lowest TL4 since we began--But I digress...sorry Merxiless.

That was another point of T4, in its harkening back to earliest CT days, when TL-13, and J-4, and such were the Verse's standards for a while, andJ-1, & J-2 was all players could get their hands on...more later as I recall it.

who's next?

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Merxiless:
I actually prefer T4's return. It was kind of like a retro..I don't know. A different time, and the art seemed to me to be the remnants of the long night.

Overgrown ruins, crowded, dirty spaceports, with some new shiney tech, as things got back to normal.

True, there was I recall the Indiana-Jones' appeal of resolving mysteries of the Long Night's period (several thousand years) vs. mysteries less than a century (TNE's 1130-1202 collapse/ recovery era).

I like the idea of gaming in different eras of a game universe.

I didn't like TNE or the Virus, but I did respect what they were trying to do. With everything destroyed, only heroes would have the mettle to survive. And they wanted to make the T2K Change from 1.0 to 2.0 to 2.2 complete, so that Twilight players could been enticed, and it was one rules set, with a previously tested combat system.

I have all the books, it's just hard to find players for TNE. T4, somewhat easier, at least, around here.

That was one of the many reasons I liked T20, I could play it in any Time-era of the Imperium, and the 990's outset of the 1st Rim War was but a technological step beyond Milieu 0, where TL14 was the new Imperial zenith, TL-13was the standard, and TL-12 was commonplace.

T4's Milieu 0 had TL-13 the new zenith/ TL-12 the standards, and TL-11 common place.

My current campaign (I game 1/2 weeks on Fridays) is T20 ruleset set in 1210, out in the Wilds along the Reft/ former spinward edge of Dulinor's region, the P-subsector of the former duchy of Cyril.

The highest human-led tech world they've (the players) found so far is TL9, and the lowest TL4 since we began--But I digress...sorry Merxiless.

That was another point of T4, in its harkening back to earliest CT days, when TL-13, and J-4, and such were the Verse's standards for a while, andJ-1, & J-2 was all players could get their hands on...more later as I recall it.

who's next?

 

[Malenfant]

This ties in more with Martin's comments elsewhere, but...

I do remember that when T4 came out, I looked at it and thought "you know what, I really don't need another system to play Traveller". Though I did later embrace GT, largely because I didn't need to learn another system since I already knew GURPS.

But even back then, when we just had the three different systems (CT, MT, and TNE), I'd thought that was quite enough. Now look where we are - we've got three more on top of that and another on the way.

 

[Malenfant]

This ties in more with Martin's comments elsewhere, but...

I do remember that when T4 came out, I looked at it and thought "you know what, I really don't need another system to play Traveller". Though I did later embrace GT, largely because I didn't need to learn another system since I already knew GURPS.

But even back then, when we just had the three different systems (CT, MT, and TNE), I'd thought that was quite enough. Now look where we are - we've got three more on top of that and another on the way.

 

[MJD]

I liked T4 and still do. In fact it was (for me) the best system to date in terms of feeling like CT but having less inconsistencies.

 

[MJD]

I liked T4 and still do. In fact it was (for me) the best system to date in terms of feeling like CT but having less inconsistencies.

 

[GypsyComet]

The basic T4 rulebook showed a lot of promise. The supplemental books mostly squandered that promise.

Deciding to consciously vary M:0 from the established M:1100 setting OR ANYTHING THAT COULD LEAD TO M:1100 was the first mistake.

Okay, not quite. Putting Ken Whitman in charge was the first mistake.

Letting the author of Gamma World write scenarios was another mistake. (which is why the book of scenarios feels like "Gamma World in space" instead of Traveller)

Letting production goals control the products instead of balancing the two needs against each other was another mistake. A release schedule too fast for Marc to do proper checking of products just compounded the mistake.

Letting the bluelines for FF&S go by without serious checking was a serious mistake.

Selling the company to Courtney Solomon (maker of the first D&D movie) was a mistake.

Putting fan submissions for starship deckplans into a book without reality checking was a mistake.

...

In general, it's a miracle T4 is as "not bad" as it is. Traveller got started with one digest-sized game book and a similar sized magazine PER QUARTER. T4, with a largeish book-shaped mistake per month, showed us why the quarterly CT schedule was a good idea.

 

[GypsyComet]

The basic T4 rulebook showed a lot of promise. The supplemental books mostly squandered that promise.

Deciding to consciously vary M:0 from the established M:1100 setting OR ANYTHING THAT COULD LEAD TO M:1100 was the first mistake.

Okay, not quite. Putting Ken Whitman in charge was the first mistake.

Letting the author of Gamma World write scenarios was another mistake. (which is why the book of scenarios feels like "Gamma World in space" instead of Traveller)

Letting production goals control the products instead of balancing the two needs against each other was another mistake. A release schedule too fast for Marc to do proper checking of products just compounded the mistake.

Letting the bluelines for FF&S go by without serious checking was a serious mistake.

Selling the company to Courtney Solomon (maker of the first D&D movie) was a mistake.

Putting fan submissions for starship deckplans into a book without reality checking was a mistake.

...

In general, it's a miracle T4 is as "not bad" as it is. Traveller got started with one digest-sized game book and a similar sized magazine PER QUARTER. T4, with a largeish book-shaped mistake per month, showed us why the quarterly CT schedule was a good idea.

 

[MJD]

Yup. I have most of the books. Many are really very good and the rulebook is probably the most-used rulebook I have.

As often as not the writers did a good job only to have it mangled by editors (I use the term loosely) or production values. Other writers just didn't know Traveller and nobody bothered to check their entries.

So we have negative-twin worlds hiding in nebulae, laser pistols built into everything in sight, force field walls in space ships....

And yet, despite it all, it was at heart a good system with some really very good supplements. And some very bad ones.

I liked T4. I really did.


BTW: Ken Whitman is the only games industry figure to be at the head of two different companies that still owe me money. He also has the distinction of approaching me to try a third time. He severed contact when I asked about the first two...

 

[MJD]

Yup. I have most of the books. Many are really very good and the rulebook is probably the most-used rulebook I have.

As often as not the writers did a good job only to have it mangled by editors (I use the term loosely) or production values. Other writers just didn't know Traveller and nobody bothered to check their entries.

So we have negative-twin worlds hiding in nebulae, laser pistols built into everything in sight, force field walls in space ships....

And yet, despite it all, it was at heart a good system with some really very good supplements. And some very bad ones.

I liked T4. I really did.


BTW: Ken Whitman is the only games industry figure to be at the head of two different companies that still owe me money. He also has the distinction of approaching me to try a third time. He severed contact when I asked about the first two...

 

[Gruffty]

I like the mileu/era of T4 - the restrictions on jump distances, the slightly lower TLs, even the sourcebooks.

But the task system and ship building systems took the shine off it for me. I came to T4 *very* late - 2004, in fact - and I had previously owned all the CT and MT stuff, then got rid of it all, then bought it all again much later (i.e. within the last few years) plus T20 and some G:T books as well. So I think it's fair to say I'm biaised....

Anyhoo, T4 was (as I've said before) a great idea badly edited/executed. I can see the rationale for the task system but I still think it's a "poor performer" compared to MT's system. I prefer HG's ship system but would *love* to amalgamate all the realy nice bits from MT into HG (but "lack time, inspiration and motivation" to do so for myself )

So my simple resolution to my own issues with T4 would be to use CT/MT chargen + MT worlds (tweaked) + CT ships + modified CT+MT combat in the T4 era Traveller universe.

I can't honestly say that I think T4 = 100% rubbish; but I also don't think that CT/MT/G:T/T20 = 100% brilliant either. All of the systems have problems and good points; no one system can be said to be "perfect" or the best in all aspects, all of the time.

It's up to us, as the players and Refs/GMs, to take what we want, need or can use from the available rules and employ those things to meet our gaming needs.

I don't think T4 gets any more of a hard time than any of the other rules; I just think that the mistakes (errata, etc) are more blatantly obvious in T4 and are therefore more open to criticism. In fact I'd say that MT probably comes second in that aspect - the dead tree copy of MT books I own already have a lot (not all, though) of the errata incorporated - this doesn't appear to have happend with T4 books.

Just my Cr 0.02 worth....

 

[Gruffty]

I like the mileu/era of T4 - the restrictions on jump distances, the slightly lower TLs, even the sourcebooks.

But the task system and ship building systems took the shine off it for me. I came to T4 *very* late - 2004, in fact - and I had previously owned all the CT and MT stuff, then got rid of it all, then bought it all again much later (i.e. within the last few years) plus T20 and some G:T books as well. So I think it's fair to say I'm biaised....

Anyhoo, T4 was (as I've said before) a great idea badly edited/executed. I can see the rationale for the task system but I still think it's a "poor performer" compared to MT's system. I prefer HG's ship system but would *love* to amalgamate all the realy nice bits from MT into HG (but "lack time, inspiration and motivation" to do so for myself )

So my simple resolution to my own issues with T4 would be to use CT/MT chargen + MT worlds (tweaked) + CT ships + modified CT+MT combat in the T4 era Traveller universe.

I can't honestly say that I think T4 = 100% rubbish; but I also don't think that CT/MT/G:T/T20 = 100% brilliant either. All of the systems have problems and good points; no one system can be said to be "perfect" or the best in all aspects, all of the time.

It's up to us, as the players and Refs/GMs, to take what we want, need or can use from the available rules and employ those things to meet our gaming needs.

I don't think T4 gets any more of a hard time than any of the other rules; I just think that the mistakes (errata, etc) are more blatantly obvious in T4 and are therefore more open to criticism. In fact I'd say that MT probably comes second in that aspect - the dead tree copy of MT books I own already have a lot (not all, though) of the errata incorporated - this doesn't appear to have happend with T4 books.

Just my Cr 0.02 worth....

 

[Gadrin]

I rather liked the infrastructure info that T4 has given us (building materials, etc). I didn't play all the incarnations of Traveller so I don't know what TNE and MT had in them. T4 and GT were the only things around at the time. I liked the Central Supply Catalog and Emperor's Arsenal. I ended up with 5 T4 books total.

I think GURPS did a great job -- no it's not for everybody, but it helped me understand some of the blank spots that Traveller held, and books I didn't have.

I'll definitely buy the T4 CD when it comes out.

 

[Gadrin]

I rather liked the infrastructure info that T4 has given us (building materials, etc). I didn't play all the incarnations of Traveller so I don't know what TNE and MT had in them. T4 and GT were the only things around at the time. I liked the Central Supply Catalog and Emperor's Arsenal. I ended up with 5 T4 books total.

I think GURPS did a great job -- no it's not for everybody, but it helped me understand some of the blank spots that Traveller held, and books I didn't have.

I'll definitely buy the T4 CD when it comes out.

 

[Prospero]

I've generally always preferred CT with the advanced chargen (LBB4!) and Striker combat rules. It's what I started with so...

That said, I like T4 overall. I like the skill system with some house rules. In fact we played in the CT universe with T4 rules for a long time.

I found some things like the editing especially lame though. I mean the intro adventures start in the Spinward Marches...and then there is no info on the Spinward Marches anywhere...that alway pissed me off because I like the Spinward Marches...anyway..

I also never like many of the other T4 books. Lame deck plans, crappy vehicles...although I did like the Emperor's Arsenal.

The one thing I've disliked about most Traveller rules sets except TNE is the ability to learn any skills outside of your profession. I mean, why can my Marine learn to fly a ship's boat or to play the guitar...? If I'm in the Navy..I can't learn to brawl (T4 really).

 

[Prospero]

I've generally always preferred CT with the advanced chargen (LBB4!) and Striker combat rules. It's what I started with so...

That said, I like T4 overall. I like the skill system with some house rules. In fact we played in the CT universe with T4 rules for a long time.

I found some things like the editing especially lame though. I mean the intro adventures start in the Spinward Marches...and then there is no info on the Spinward Marches anywhere...that alway pissed me off because I like the Spinward Marches...anyway..

I also never like many of the other T4 books. Lame deck plans, crappy vehicles...although I did like the Emperor's Arsenal.

The one thing I've disliked about most Traveller rules sets except TNE is the ability to learn any skills outside of your profession. I mean, why can my Marine learn to fly a ship's boat or to play the guitar...? If I'm in the Navy..I can't learn to brawl (T4 really).

 

[weasel fierce]

I got a copy of this off ebay, and have been reading it a bit. It looks like a fun and good game, though I havent touched the starship stuff yet. The task system leans more towards stats than skills, than I'd like (as a Runequest player

), but thats no biggie to me.

Best of all, it "feels" like old traveller

 

[weasel fierce]

I got a copy of this off ebay, and have been reading it a bit. It looks like a fun and good game, though I havent touched the starship stuff yet. The task system leans more towards stats than skills, than I'd like (as a Runequest player

), but thats no biggie to me.

Best of all, it "feels" like old traveller

 

[Prospero]

The task system leans more towards stats than skills, than I'd like (as a Runequest player

), but thats no biggie to me.

[/QB]

Ah RQ, a great game, especially RQ2.

I generally like T4 (except for battle pods..ugh).

I think there are some easy fixes to the above problem, and in some cases the actual skills are already important. In brawling, for example, when some one attacks you your skill (not dex) is important (lowers their target number).

We used a couple of house rules...

(1) A character only gets an aiming bonus equal to his relevant gun combat skill x2. Thus high dex characters are pretty good in short range snap fire, but a well trained sniper is better at long range fire.

(2) Assign a skill task level to some problems to represent trained knowledge base. If the character's skill level is below that, the penalty is -2 per level of difference. For example, cracking a computer security program of level 4, would be a level 4 computer task. A character with computer-2, would have a -4 modifier.
Likewise, Stabilizing a gunshot wound in the field might be a medic-1 task, but operating on the same wound would be a medic-4 task (medical specialty for surgery). Thus your typical army medic (with medic-1) would have a -6 penalty for surgery. The task might still be a difficult or average surgery affecting the number of dice rolled.

We generally based the skills requirements at

1 = formal training but basic (paramedic, rifleman, college, basic self defense)

2 = advanced training (nurse, masters degree, martial arts training)

3 = professional level (doctor, Phd, sniper, black belt)

4 = specialist (surgeon, experienced scholar, elite sniper)

 

[Prospero]

The task system leans more towards stats than skills, than I'd like (as a Runequest player

), but thats no biggie to me.

[/QB]

Ah RQ, a great game, especially RQ2.

I generally like T4 (except for battle pods..ugh).

I think there are some easy fixes to the above problem, and in some cases the actual skills are already important. In brawling, for example, when some one attacks you your skill (not dex) is important (lowers their target number).

We used a couple of house rules...

(1) A character only gets an aiming bonus equal to his relevant gun combat skill x2. Thus high dex characters are pretty good in short range snap fire, but a well trained sniper is better at long range fire.

(2) Assign a skill task level to some problems to represent trained knowledge base. If the character's skill level is below that, the penalty is -2 per level of difference. For example, cracking a computer security program of level 4, would be a level 4 computer task. A character with computer-2, would have a -4 modifier.
Likewise, Stabilizing a gunshot wound in the field might be a medic-1 task, but operating on the same wound would be a medic-4 task (medical specialty for surgery). Thus your typical army medic (with medic-1) would have a -6 penalty for surgery. The task might still be a difficult or average surgery affecting the number of dice rolled.

We generally based the skills requirements at

1 = formal training but basic (paramedic, rifleman, college, basic self defense)

2 = advanced training (nurse, masters degree, martial arts training)

3 = professional level (doctor, Phd, sniper, black belt)

4 = specialist (surgeon, experienced scholar, elite sniper)