What do you HATE about CT?

[Malenfant]

Speaking of hissy fits, it also seems that you're the only one getting bent out of shape here. And you're getting personal with it too. If it makes you feel any better, I would have made exactly the same comments regardless of who posted that they liked the game here.

Maybe I should ask you why you're so keen on enacting a personal vendetta against me here (to the point where you seem to want to boldify my name, for some reason)? You're the only one getting frothy here.

The fact remains though that if you want to say how great you think Traveller is or what you like about it, then you should start another thread on it (I tell you what though, you won't see me posting about how I hated CT on that). This obviously isn't an appropriate thread to say that sort of thing though, and you're clearly "thread-crapping" by doing so.

Now, can we take it as read that you're going to launch another attack on me for saying all this and just pretend that won't happen? Or do you want to continue derailing the thread with your continuing attacks on me for being here? It's entirely up to you - back off or carry on arguing.

 

[Mickazoid]

Guys - can we all agree that we all are deserving of respect and the right to post here?

I could learn a ton from both of you and don't like seeing you both attacking (and feeling hurt by) each other. Let's all take a deep breath and try to calm down a bit, have a cup of tea and remember why we're here ... 'cause we all love Traveller.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Once again you duck the question posed by attempting to change the subject.

Who did my post hurt, Malenfant?

Why are you here?

This isn't your thesis defense, doctor - you can't baffle anyone with bullshit here. Duck and weave all you want, but each time you do, you simply expose your glass-jawed ego for what it is. (I'll bet the underside of the rock is starting to look pretty good, isn't it? Tick-tock, tick-tock...)

Answer the questions, Malenfant.

 

[jfetters]

Just as an aside here, I would like to point out that we are talking about "hate" (a pretty strong word, IMO), I should have probably qualified my first quote by saying "things I really disliked about the first edition (books 1-3 and to a certain extent, 4-6).

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Fetters:
Computers/cassettes, definitely and (hindsight here) over-simplified chargen.

Again with the computers I know, it's what most people seem to hate about the game, but you're looking at it wrong imo.</font>[/QUOTE]I think one thing to keep in mind about my responses here (and that, literally, was all I could think of - and like I said above, "hate" is a big stretch) was the time Traveller came into my life (early 80s) and the perspectives I had on computers, technology and sci-fi definitely colored my perception of things greatly.

So regarding computers, I totally see your point, far-trader, but I don't agree.

I just thought it seemed ridiculous that one would be swapping tapes in a computer of the far future, is all. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I just don't accept it. I dealt with it as much as I could in CT but luckily, within a few years MT was out and that whole thing was jettisoned.

Over-simplified chargen I have to take issue with as well. It was simple yes, but that's not a fault. Compare it with D&D, even AD&D. Those rules didn't generate "characters". They created archtypes and stereotypes. CT created "characters". Living and breathing people with souls and history, and all with a few simple D6 rolls and imagination. Could it have had more? Sure, and we added it as needed. Want a new skill? The book says talk to the ref about it and work it out. You don't need to be limited to what is printed

Yeah, can't really argue with that. Even when Traveller is bad (very rarely), it is better than D&D (Hey, I'm level 15 now! Give me my promotion, dammit!). Kind of like sex - even when it's bad, it's good.

But specifically (and I am really reaching with the memory here), I want to say that I bought book 5 very close to the time I bought the core books, so my perception was that you had great characters available in the Navy, but not much else.

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:
Oh yeah - Backpack lasers. I wanted blasters, dammit!

And you could have made them up for the game. Nothing said you couldn't and the rules were simple enough that it could be done with a little (very little) work. What's more the combat system was chunky (non-nitty-gritty-detailed) enough that you wouldn't have unbalanced things badly unless you intentionally did so.

True, but this was an area that really had me scratching my head. THis was before I really understood the distinction between hard & soft sci-fi, so most of the written and performed sci-fi I had seen was more soft to space-opera type where if a small energy weapon was used, it was some kind of portable laser that wasn't connected to some damn backpack.

So, on my first read, I thought it was a glaring omission. And I was more in the player mode in those days with Traveller, so I didn't do too much designing.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
...the designers force you to think in hexadecimal...

WHich was actually a help for me as it ultimately made me understand a lot of things easier in my career (same for the binary portal system in Adventure 12).

 

[Malenfant]

Sorry, mick - looks like BGG is too intent on trying to goad and bait me and drive me out of here (which isn't working at all, BTW) to listen to any kind of reason.

(and funnily enough, I just had a cup of tea ).

Anyway, let's try to steer this back on topic and away from that frothing guy in the corner there.

Originally posted by far-trader:
Chargen was a dream imo and experience, no nightmare qualities for us.

As usual, that depends on whether you like random chargen or not. CT's is far too random for my taste - always has been for me (I picked it up just before MT came out).

Obtuse ship design? Because the mechanics of the system are not spelled out and you're limited to a set of values from a table? Or because some parts are defined in a percieved arbitrary manner? Or why exactly? I'm just curious.

I dunno, would it make it any clearer if I said I liked the design system in FF&S? . One thing I really hated about CT though was the endless stream of numbers and letters used to decribe the ships though. I can't think of a more obscure, incomprehensible way to display ship stats than that.

Forced to think in hex eh?

Guess my brain must be wired that way since it never seemed to be an issue. Certainly I never found it forced, I just used it. I actually found it a wonder that I could make notations of single digit/letters to mean more. F is 15! Wow!

Yeah, but don't you think that's a darn weird way to show something in a roleplaying game?! I mean, what's an RPG doing displaying things in a way that usually is only used in computer programming??

But you know what happend? I'd detail a system (or several for the fun) and the players would pop in at the gas giant, skim some fuel, and jump on to the next system. Never a minute to spare to admire the binary sunset from the fourth moon of the little desert world. It got to the point where I wanted to create a party of Travellers without a starship just so I could 'force' them to explore a single solar system.[/QB]

Absolutely, but the same thing happens with other aspects of the game. You can build a huge megafreighter to awe the characters, but if all they do is fly past it in their ship then it's a bit of a waste of time... unless you just make it for the sake of making it. The worldbuilding works like that too - most of the detail is lost in practise (or filters into the game as part of the background description of the environment), but it becomes a more fruitful exercise if you just build the systems because you like doing that. Maybe that's the point of the random chargen too, but that never appealed to me.

 

[Maladominus]

I have three things to say:

#1) I love CT.


#2) Malenfant, while obviously a cad is in his right to state how much he dislikes Classic Traveller. Why?? Ummm, because the original question of this entire thread is about WHAT IS TO HATE ABOUT CLASSIC TRAVELLER.


#3) Everyone here should actually spend more time playing Traveller, rather than drama queening in these COTI forums.

 

[kafka47]

CT was an excellent, playable game for its time and remains an excellent game today.

Note the omission in latter. It is not that one cannot continue playing CT but gaming technologies and some of the ideas have changed as the real world around us has changed as have our imaginary worlds through the movies & fiction.

Any new version of Traveller has to scale that into consideration. Which is why I think Marc is quite right in creating a template which is like a catalogue of role playing mechanics and the saying go wherever you want with it.

Traveller has a remarkable flexibility in that regard, whilst, we might not have nanotech in the Imperial era, there is no reason why we cannot push it into the Ancient Era or into the Galatic Federation of the Far, Far, Far Future or simply in Your Own Traveller Universe.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by kafka47:
[QB]Any new version of Traveller has to scale that into consideration. Which is why I think Marc is quite right in creating a template which is like a catalogue of role playing mechanics and the saying go wherever you want with it.

That's hardly an original approach - GURPS and HERO and other generic games have done the same thing for years. If Marc is taking that approach then he has to demonstrate ways in which his systems are superior to the alternatives out there. Though given what I've seen of his work in the past I strongly doubt that he'll come up with anything that is anywhere near as (a) understandable, (b) usable or (c) versatile as those other game engines.

Traveller has a remarkable flexibility in that regard, whilst, we might not have nanotech in the Imperial era, there is no reason why we cannot push it into the Ancient Era or into the Galatic Federation of the Far, Far, Far Future or simply in Your Own Traveller Universe.

Again though, that's not unique to Traveller - you could argue the same for any game out there. Any game can be anything you want if you are prepared to put in the effort to change it - but then at some point you have to ask yourself if it's worth going through that effort or if it's better to just find something that's closer to what you want in the first place...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
... </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Chargen was a dream imo and experience, no nightmare qualities for us.

As usual, that depends on whether you like random chargen or not.</font>[/QUOTE]Quite true, and part of the reason such a topic bothers me, there are different answers for every person.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Obtuse ship design? Because the mechanics of the system are not spelled out and you're limited to a set of values from a table? Or because some parts are defined in a percieved arbitrary manner? Or why exactly? I'm just curious.

I dunno, would it make it any clearer if I said I liked the design system in FF&S? . One thing I really hated about CT though was the endless stream of numbers and letters used to decribe the ships though. I can't think of a more obscure, incomprehensible way to display ship stats than that. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually yes, FF&S was/is a gearheads dream book. It will allow you to make the game what you want in ways that CT really couldn't. Ah, the old USP. I agree to a point there. That was more a grognardy thing than an rpg thing, which is why I prefer the text writeup and colour such as in Supplement 7. Sure it still had the USP but you could always ignore it and just use the description (when done properly). Again though, play with it enough and it becomes another language and once fluent not hard to handle.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Forced to think in hex eh?

Guess my brain must be wired that way since it never seemed to be an issue. Certainly I never found it forced, I just used it. I actually found it a wonder that I could make notations of single digit/letters to mean more. F is 15! Wow!

Yeah, but don't you think that's a darn weird way to show something in a roleplaying game?! I mean, what's an RPG doing displaying things in a way that usually is only used in computer programming?? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I guess it is odd at that. But somehow for me it seemed to fit the whole Sci-Fi theme

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But you know what happend? I'd detail a system (or several for the fun) and the players would pop in at the gas giant, skim some fuel, and jump on to the next system. Never a minute to spare to admire the binary sunset from the fourth moon of the little desert world. It got to the point where I wanted to create a party of Travellers without a starship just so I could 'force' them to explore a single solar system.

Absolutely, but the same thing happens with other aspects of the game. You can build a huge megafreighter to awe the characters, but if all they do is fly past it in their ship then it's a bit of a waste of time... unless you just make it for the sake of making it. The worldbuilding works like that too - most of the detail is lost in practise (or filters into the game as part of the background description of the environment), but it becomes a more fruitful exercise if you just build the systems because you like doing that. Maybe that's the point of the random chargen too, but that never appealed to me. </font>[/QUOTE]Truth again, and certainly I've found fun in playing with most aspects of the game when I couldn't play the game. Ship building to universe building and populating it all with random characters, but as you say that won't appeal to all, especially those who only want to play the game.

And this kind of discussion is what I like when the question of what we hate comes up. A dialogue of reasons, not just a flat rant Thanks for the insights, and despite opinion to the contrary there are some who don't mind seeing you back aboard Mal. Of course now I've gone and allied myself with you so I'll be equally reviled in some camps

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
One thing I really hated about CT though was the endless stream of numbers and letters used to decribe the ships though

Oddly enough, I wasn't too impressed with the USP and was glad that MT dropped it.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
...#3) Everyone here should actually spend more time playing Traveller, rather than drama queening in these COTI forums.

But THAT'S all I have at the moment!

 

[Mickazoid]

I love the USP 'cause it makes perfect sense. I would sometimes just look at the diffs between two codes to gauge their relative strengths, etc. I liked that.

Plus those sorts of U*P codes are great for software apps

 

[kafka47]

Both very valid points, Mal. Save no other SFRPG did really do that. D20 has come close (and some might argue D&D)...but still Traveller set the ground for Hero & GURPS.

The elegant simple rules along with little to actually memorize is what set CT apart. GURPS in its early days looked quite horrendious and was not a popular product. SJG kept on learning from its mistakes and extensive playtesting made it the successful game system that it is today.

HERO, I have played Champions, back in the 80s, and to be honest I don't remember much but chargen seemed to be overly complicated and as well as task resolution.

CT provide the atoms to build more complicated forms of matter. Other versions of Traveller have maybe added compounds. Other game systems have maybe given structure. Whereas, it is the referee no matter what that creates the art by incorporating or discarding what is neccessary.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by mickazoid:
I love the USP 'cause it makes perfect sense.

It was just tooooooo loooooonnnnngggggg for my liking. I could never figure out what each digit meant without having to flip LBB5 open.

 

[kafka47]

One additional addium, one must always place CT in the context of when it came out. This was an era of Machine Language (hence USP looked more futuristic), large computers in every movie that filled a room or if they were small, they were really small (end of Demon Seed, anyone). It also had nothing to compare to, save D&D and if you did not want get sued for just copying D&D, it was pretty original for its time.

 

[Mickazoid]

Gruffty there are like 5 million Windows programs. Go download them instead of giving me high blood pressure. Quitting smoking is indeed making you slightly annoying.

Can anyone suggest a program to him for sector gen? Galactic? Heaven and Earth?

Kafka - I agree completely. It was 'space opera', pure and simple. The genre is dated, for sure... but it was classic 70's-80's futurism

. The idea that performing a human task like 'Evasion' or 'Navigation' would take up all of a computer's memory was (and kinda is) cool.

 

[RandyT0001]

What do I hate about CT?

I hate that I didn't write and produce it and make mega-millions $$$. Ok, maybe not mega-millions $$$ but the admiration of the largest number of fans of a "non-movie/TV series" (StarWars, StarTrek, Dr Who, etc.) based sci-fi game made.

Malenfant wrote;
"That's hardly an original approach - GURPS and HERO and other generic games have done the same thing for years."

It was pretty original in July/August of 1977 when it came out, several years before HERO, GURPS, and the other generic game systems IIRC.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:

It was pretty original in July/August of 1977 when it came out, several years before HERO, GURPS, and the other generic game systems IIRC. [/QB]

Well, the original post didn't specify anything about a timeframe... while it may have been original in 1977, it's 2006 now and the roleplaying market is much larger, game design has evolved considerably since then, and norms and standards have changed completely.

CT may have been an gaming marvel for its time, but it's not remotely appealing to the current RPG market nowadays. Heck, most of that market wasn't even born when it was released... As it is, CT was taken up by very few new people when it was re-released - most of those went for T20 instead.

You really can't assess something properly by looking at it with rose-tinted glasses - you've got to judge it in the current context. It's not the only space game around now, for example. It may have been good for its day, but how well do you think it would stand up to the today's competition? It'd be like comparing a Model T Ford to a modern car, be it Geo Metro or Ford Mustang...

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

Well, the original post didn't specify anything about a timeframe... while it may have been original in 1977, it's 2006 now and the roleplaying market is much larger, game design has evolved considerably since then, and norms and standards have changed completely.

You really can't assess something properly by looking at it with rose-tinted glasses - you've got to judge it in the current context. It's not the only space game around now, for example. It may have been good for its day, but how well do you think it would stand up to the today's competition? It'd be like comparing a Model T Ford to a modern car, be it Geo Metro or Ford Mustang...

You were the one who questioned CT's originality by camparing it to other, later game systems. When it came out in 1977 it was an excellent system, readily adaptable to different genres with a little work by the referee. It is still a good system today judging by the number of die-hard fans. Today there are alot of game systems but very few that have such a large number of loyal fans as CT does. (The D&D to AD&D to D20 morphing doesn't count IMO since they changed game mechanics so much. How many original D&D fans are there compared to the number of CT fans today, not as many I'd bet.) If CT had a few rules clarified, dropped the chance of death in character generation, expanded upon to include some basic vehicular rules and re-packaged into a slick, glossy cover hardback book with some advertisement it would sell well today. It would take a bit of investment to do properly. But that's my opinion and it's not likely to happen.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
[QBYou were the one who questioned CT's originality by camparing it to other, later game systems.

Ah, no. I questioned its relevance NOW (actually I think it was more T5's to be honest) because other game systems exist that do the same thing, and do it better.

When it came out in 1977 it was an excellent system, readily adaptable to different genres with a little work by the referee.

I wonder how many people actually DID use it for different genres back then though? The cross-genre concept took a while to show up in roleplaying, and CT certainly didn't encourage it any more than D&D did.

It is still a good system today judging by the number of die-hard fans.

The tenacity of a game's fans is not a sign of how good a system is. It's just a sign of how obsessive the fans are .

Today there are alot of game systems but very few that have such a large number of loyal fans as CT does. (The D&D to AD&D to D20 morphing doesn't count IMO since they changed game mechanics so much. How many original D&D fans are there compared to the number of CT fans today, not as many I'd bet.)

So there's very few systems other than the ones that are really big that you're choosing to ignore?

D20 has an enormous following. As does Exalted. And the World of Darkness games. And GURPS. And HERO. Your statement is inaccurate, to say the least.

If CT had a few rules clarified, dropped the chance of death in character generation, expanded upon to include some basic vehicular rules and re-packaged into a slick, glossy cover hardback book with some advertisement it would sell well today.[/QB]

"So, if we take a Model T Ford, strip the chassis and put a new one in, upgrade the engine, install comfortable seats, rebuild the suspension, and beef up the transmission we'll have something that will be competetive on the market today!"