Traveller Versions - T-what???

[Tar-Palantir]

HI all;

I started out with the original LBB version of Traveller in 1978, IIRC. Since then I have found out (reading this board) that there are many more versions than I was aware of.

I *do* know of T2300AD.

I got some MegaTraveller supplements (Rebellion Sourcebook) for setting information. And I just purchased T20, which looks pretty nice indeed.

Imperium games had a version of Traveller out as well, but IIRC all I knew it to be called was Marc Miller's Traveller. Is this T4?

What other versions were there? What is T5? Is this GURPS Traveller?

It'd be nice to have a complete picture of what there was and in what order.

 

[Ellros]

T1... CT, Books 1-8 and all the supplements

T2... Megatraveller; The New Era

T3... Gurp's Traveller

T4... Marc Miller's Traveller

T5... Traveller T20

I think that's the correct listing?

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Not quite. Here goes:
</font>

• CT - Classic Traveller (Little Black Books)</font>
• MT - MegaTraveller</font>
• TNE - Traveller New Era</font>
• T23K - Traveller 2300</font>
• GT - GURPS Traveller</font>
• T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller</font>
• T20 - Traveller d20</font>
• T5 - An alleged new version of Traveller</font>

Whew!

 

[PVernon]

Originally posted by Ellros:
T1... CT, Books 1-8 and all the supplements

T2... Megatraveller; The New Era

T3... Gurp's Traveller

T4... Marc Miller's Traveller

T5... Traveller T20

I think that's the correct listing?

Minor Change to the list:
T1 - Classic TRaveller - M1100
T2 - Mega Traveller - M1120
T3 - Traveller New Era - M1200 (compleat system change)
T4 - Marc Miller's - M0 (Back CT and MT with some up dates. Would have been nice if the production quality had been "real")
GT - GURPS Traveller - M1120 no assasination (Very good sorce material!)
T20 - Traveller D20 - M1000
T5 - Marc's ultimate Traveller M???? (Yet to be realised)
I think that is closer. The M1100 etc. is the year of the 3rd Imperium around which the background material is centered.
Peter V.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Ellros:
T1... CT, Books 1-8 and all the supplements

T2... Megatraveller; The New Era

T3... Gurp's Traveller

T4... Marc Miller's Traveller

T5... Traveller T20

I think that's the correct listing?

Close, but not quite:

T1=Traveller=little black books=Classic Traveller=CT (1977-1987)

T2=MegaTraveller=MT (1987-1992)

T3=Traveller:The New Era=TNE (1993-1995)

T4=Marc Miller's Traveller (1996-1997)

GT=GURPS:Traveller (1998-present)*

T20=d20 Traveller (2002-present)*

T5=Traveller^5 (not yet published)

*GT and T20 are licensed usage of the Traveller name, setting, and 'style' in other game systems, not connected to the Traveller game engine, and thus are not properly counted in the numerical progression of Traveller editions.

Edited to add: Oh well, looks like a couple other folks beat me to it. At least between the 3 of us it should all be clear now

 

[Tar-Palantir]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies, guys.

Ask and ye shall receive, eh?

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by T. Foster:

T4=Marc Miller's Traveller (1996-1997)

GT=GURPS:Traveller (1998-present)*

T20=d20 Traveller (2002-present)*

T5=Traveller^5 (not yet published)

*GT and T20 are licensed usage of the Traveller name, setting, and 'style' in other game systems, not connected to the Traveller game engine, and thus are not properly counted in the numerical progression of Traveller editions.

Why should that be important though? They're still just as 'official' as any of the other Traveller versions, aren't they?

 

[DrSkull]

The only reason it's important is that if T5 ever does come out, it won't be called T7, because GT and T20 don't count as being GDW-Marc Miller directed.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by DrSkull:
The only reason it's important is that if T5 ever does come out, it won't be called T7, because GT and T20 don't count as being GDW-Marc Miller directed.

This distinction is somewhat strange to me. From what I understand, Marc keeps tabs on GT and will do so for T20 stuff, won't he - so why is it important that he has to 'direct' things in person? Does it necessarily make it any better? And what happens when the New Era:1248 stuff comes out for T20? Is that another version of Traveller?

And I dare say that even if a T5 ever comes out, there'll still be people whingeing about how it's not done right and hankering over a future T6... :/

 

[William]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrSkull:
The only reason it's important is that if T5 ever does come out, it won't be called T7, because GT and T20 don't count as being GDW-Marc Miller directed.

This distinction is somewhat strange to me. From what I understand, Marc keeps tabs on GT and will do so for T20 stuff, won't he - so why is it important that he has to 'direct' things in person? Does it necessarily make it any better? And what happens when the New Era:1248 stuff comes out for T20? Is that another version of Traveller?

And I dare say that even if a T5 ever comes out, there'll still be people whingeing about how it's not done right and hankering over a future T6... :/</font>[/QUOTE]Of course they will. Why do you think Hackmaster has a market?

William

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I think the point is that t's 1-4 were evolution/incarnations of what was intended to be the same game engine. as such t4 was the 4th version of the Traveller GAME.

GT and T20 are the traveller milleau set in a DIFFERENT game engine and thus don't count for numbering of the evolutions of the actual Traveller engine. Does that make better sense of the distinction that delving into copyright and ownership issues?

For me it's moot. I just use the terms that everyone else uses. and the aparantly for The Imperium Games 'Marc Miller's Traveller' that's 't4' -- it could be 'Banana' for all I care as long as you knew which game I meant.

 

[daryen]

As Garf mentioned, the main distinction is that CT, MT, TNE and T4 were all game systems in their own right. Whereas GT and T20 are based on other, preexisting game systems.

The other complicating factor here is that each of the six "editions" have their own time period that they focused on. The most common milieu name(s) is/are show in [brackets].
CT -> 1100 - 1112 [Classic] or [M1105]
MT -> 1116 - 1128 [Rebellion]
TNE -> 1200+ [TNE] or [M1200]
T4 -> 0+ [M0]
GT -> 1120+ (alternate) [GT]
GT -> (soon) IW (I forget the years) [none yet]
T20 -> 1000+ [M1000]
T20 -> (soon) 1248+ [M1248]

Then, to be even more confusing, you have people who prefer one rules set, but another setting. E.g. using the TNE rules, but adventuring in the 1100-1112 setting.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Garf:
I think the point is that t's 1-4 were evolution/incarnations of what was intended to be the same game engine. as such t4 was the 4th version of the Traveller GAME.

GT and T20 are the traveller milleau set in a DIFFERENT game engine and thus don't count for numbering of the evolutions of the actual Traveller engine. Does that make better sense of the distinction that delving into copyright and ownership issues?

I'm basically trying to figure out why people want a T5. There have been 4 GDW systems, a GURPS version, and a D20 version. There have also been 6 separate time periods covered, with two more on the way at least. Have none of those worked for the people who still keep wishing there was a T5?

 

[themink]

I'm basically trying to figure out why people want a T5. There have been 4 GDW systems, a GURPS version, and a D20 version. There have also been 6 separate time periods covered, with two more on the way at least. Have none of those worked for the people who still keep wishing there was a T5?[/QB][/QUOTE]

I think the answer to that is an unequivicable NO.

Roleplaying games (like practically everything else) is evolutionary.

People/gaming companies come up with rules that are different from current ones, or put together in different combinations. Every blue moon some of these rules "qork" better than a previous incarnation. Future games tend to be based on these rather than others.

For Example, D&D/chainmail started with characters who had levels but no skills. Later (Was traveller or Rolemaster first?) someone pointed out that skills "felt" like a better way to play. Now-a-days the bulk of games incorporate a skill system of some form.

I liked the Startrek RPG Skill + Stat as target numbers, it seems that it is currently commonly accepts.

One nice thing about evolution is that it is a moving target! I can easily see a game coming out shortly where each PC chooses a class and gradually gets better and better at it - no skills, no multi-classing. I could even put an arguement for it (shear simplicity if nothing else) - if that game tends to dominate the mindset then the "direction" of the hobby will vear again.

So yes, Traveller will probably have more versions - as long as the game playing public likes the mileu and rules, but wants something a little different. So the game has to be popular enough for people to buy the "next" version and unpopular enough that they want a "new" version that has "better" rules.

<Steps of soap box, shakes head. I didn't realise that I had that bottled up inside - wonders where it came from. Has someone been putting things in my Coffee Juice?>

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by The Mink:
So yes, Traveller will probably have more versions - as long as the game playing public likes the mileu and rules, but wants something a little different. So the game has to be popular enough for people to buy the "next" version and unpopular enough that they want a "new" version that has "better" rules.

OK. So it's really all about the system then? How ideally would this T5 operate then, from a game system POV? What are the bits that people want to see in it?

The way I see it, there surely are enough versions of Traveller (three of which are readily available at the moment: CT, GT, and T20) that people can easily pick or tweak an existing system and use that (the backgrounds can be overlaid onto pretty much mechanics, really). Most games don't even have more than one version out at a time, and yet people are still hankering over an 'ideal' version of Traveller when they already have no less than *three* to choose from on the shelves at the moment?! Sounds a bit petulant to me, really.

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
[...]The way I see it, there surely are enough versions of Traveller (three of which are readily available at the moment: CT, GT, and T20) that people can easily pick or tweak an existing system and use that (the backgrounds can be overlaid onto pretty much mechanics, really). Most games don't even have more than one version out at a time, and yet people are still hankering over an 'ideal' version of Traveller when they already have no less than *three* to choose from on the shelves at the moment?! Sounds a bit petulant to me, really.[/QB]

Petulant? I guess you play GT, do you think GURPS development should stop? Did we reached a point of rpg development from which further evolution is impossible or non significant?

I don't think so. I did not liked the TNE engine, neither d20 or GURPS. However, the Traveller rules set, as developed in CT, MT, and T4 are more of my taste. Currently, I play a mix of T4, CT, and house rules. Frankly, I don't have much time to tweak systems and, because of that, I will be glad to pay for the next edition of the rules.

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
This distinction is somewhat strange to me. From what I understand, Marc keeps tabs on GT and will do so for T20 stuff, won't he - so why is it important that he has to 'direct' things in person? Does it necessarily make it any better? And what happens when the New Era:1248 stuff comes out for T20? Is that another version of Traveller?

Which of the following is "Playing Traveller"?

1) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

2) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using T20 or GT

3) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using some other game mechanics

4) A game set in a umpire created universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

5) A game set in a umpire created universe using T20 or GT

6) A game set in a umpire created universe using some other game mechanics

Its an interesting question.

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
This distinction is somewhat strange to me. From what I understand, Marc keeps tabs on GT and will do so for T20 stuff, won't he - so why is it important that he has to 'direct' things in person? Does it necessarily make it any better? And what happens when the New Era:1248 stuff comes out for T20? Is that another version of Traveller?

Which of the following is "Playing Traveller"?

1) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

2) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using T20 or GT

3) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using some other game mechanics

4) A game set in a umpire created universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

5) A game set in a umpire created universe using T20 or GT

6) A game set in a umpire created universe using some other game mechanics

Its an interesting question.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Ron:

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Petulant? I guess you play GT, do you think GURPS development should stop? Did we reached a point of rpg development from which further evolution is impossible or non significant?

Actually, I don't play *any* version of Traveller

, though I have most of them and at least understand their mechanics. Which may bias me somewhat - I don't give a monkey's what the system is, the background is more important to me. In fact, while I do like the general background of the game, I've only ever really used Traveller as a toolkit to make my own sci-fi universes. So I guess I am just plain weird as a Traveller fan...

Still, I can't really believe that *none* of the systems presented so far for Traveller have worked. I get the impression here (that may be mistaken, granted) that some people flat-out refuse to try T20 or GT simply because they're not evolutions of the GDW system (if they don't like them for other reasons, then that's fair enough. But not to even look at them just because they're not GDW is somewhat unbelievable to me.)

And as a matter of fact, I do think GURPS 3/e is getting overburdened by all the extra bits that have accumulated over the years...

I don't think so. I did not liked the TNE engine, neither d20 or GURPS. However, the Traveller rules set, as developed in CT, MT, and T4 are more of my taste. Currently, I play a mix of T4, CT, and house rules. Frankly, I don't have much time to tweak systems and, because of that, I will be glad to pay for the next edition of the rules.

OK - does your mix of T4/CT/house rules work though? I'd imagine it does, or you wouldn't be using it. In which case, why would you want a T5?

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Andrewmv:
Which of the following is "Playing Traveller"?

1) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

2) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using T20 or GT

3) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using some other game mechanics

4) A game set in a umpire created universe using CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T5

5) A game set in a umpire created universe using T20 or GT

6) A game set in a umpire created universe using some other game mechanics

Its an interesting question.[/QB]

(I heard you the first time, Andrew )

Yes, it is an interesting question...! You missed one important option though:

3b) A game set in the 3rd Imperium universe using *any* game mechanics. (not any other game mechanics)

To me, Traveller is two things. It's either a generic sci-fi roleplaying toolkit, or it's a sci-fi game set in the 3rd Imperium universe (which can be anything from the Time of the Ancients to New Era:1248 and beyond). IMHO, since there have been so many darn systems for it, you've got to look at the common ground between them - which is the setting of the game. For all the anti-TNE people's complaining that TNE isn't Traveller, TNE is still set in a universe with 6 specific major races, where jump takes a week, where there *was* an Imperium, and so on - so it is still the Traveller universe in my books. IMO, it doesn't matter if you run Traveller using the CT, T20, GURPS, Storyteller, or Nobilis engines, so long as the setting is the same.

As a generic sci-fi toolkit (which is what CT was to start with anyway, and what the T20 THB is to some extent) I've used tweaked versions of the TNE vehicle design/technical architecture system and the Traveller worldbuilding system to define the tech and worlds of my own sci-fi universe, and then ran the whole shebang using GURPS Space. It's worked rather well. Is that Traveller? Not really IMHO, since I don't have an Imperium or any of the other stuff - it's a sci-fi universe built using elements of Traveller though.