What do you HATE about CT?

[Scarecrow]

Artwork.

With some minor exceptions, artwork for Traveller in all it's forms has been, on the whole, amateurish and poor.

This wasn't too much of an issue with the LBBs as they had virtually no artwork beyond some vehicle drawings and a couple of guns.

I wasn't keen on CT as a rule system but it's still my favourite over any other version of Traveller by far.

 

[Scarecrow]

Artwork.

With some minor exceptions, artwork for Traveller in all it's forms has been, on the whole, amateurish and poor.

This wasn't too much of an issue with the LBBs as they had virtually no artwork beyond some vehicle drawings and a couple of guns.

I wasn't keen on CT as a rule system but it's still my favourite over any other version of Traveller by far.

 

[trader jim]

I hate that VERY LITTLE in CT is being published now....there is still a lot of good crunchy/juicy stuff in there somewhere!!!!!

 

[robject]

I don't like the USP at all, and I also don't like that Book 2 and HG play together poorly.

 

[Darkhstarr]

Other than the computers there was little I disliked about CT. Even then, I just home-ruled computer storage to what I thought was more reasonable.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
With some minor exceptions, artwork for Traveller in all it's forms has been, on the whole, amateurish and poor.

Oh lordy, what was that book, Traders and Gunboats? The one that had the pictures of the Atlantic cruiser or whatever it was? Most hideous thing I've ever seen. Heck it looked like an Escher drawing, the lines on it were so badly drawn.

It's not just that the art was bad, it's that I thought the actual design of the ships was awful too. The only two ships I thought were nice to look at were the scout/courier and the X-boat - the small traders are OK I guess, but the other bigger ships in that book are just pug-ugly...

 

[mike wightman]

Do you mean Fighting Ships, CT Supplement 9?

I agree, a lot of the pictures were naff - but there were a couple of gems.

First rule of criticism - know your subject (referring to myself here Mal

)

 

[Scarecrow]

I've just been flicking through the Big Black Books (the LBB in A4 size boxed set they published) and actually Dietrich's stuff is great. I remember really liking his pics at the time. William Keith's stuff, on the other hand is inexcusably rotten.

I love Langdon Foss's work in GURPS Traveller aswell, but that's not CT so I'll stop there.

 

[Border Reiver]

Let's face it, Traveller art work was head and shoulders above most of TSR's (A)D&D artwork.

Dietrick's work seems very cool in retrospect. Very stylized.

Bill Keith's stuff improved as he matured to the point of some really excellent paintings. JTAS 18 & 23 were fine examples.

Steve Venters, remembered better for both some really excellent covers for T2000 and 2300 and for some really awful perspective gaffs on the same.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you mean Fighting Ships, CT Supplement 9?

I agree, a lot of the pictures were naff - but there were a couple of gems.

Yeah, there was one book that had lots of small ship deckplans, and another book that had ships ranging from small to dreadnought size, I always got them muddled up (and I can't check anymore since I sold the reprints to someone a while back).

 

[Maladominus]

David Dietrick's cover art is an example of the BEST that Classic Era had to offer.

William Keith.... errm... let's just say that he was a fantastic content writer, but his artwork wasn't that spectacular. Still.... mediocre artwork is better than no artwork at all.

 

[DaveChase]

Originally posted by Sir Dameon Toth:
DaveChase, would you mind posting your ideas on GMing someplace? That sounded cool.

Sure, Point me to an appropriate forum to use and I will be happy to

Dave Chase

 

[Spinward Scout]

I think you can toss it in "In My Traveller Universe" as long as it's Travller related. Otherwise, it would have to go into Random Static.

Thanks!

 

[Eduardo]

I liked the hokey hand drawn art. It gave Traveller a more 'fan oriented' feel and was resposible for a lot of it's flavor at the time. It was a lot less serious era in RPG gaming, a nd the art fit right in like a glove.

Any idiot can master computer driven art and drawing programs and crank out slick Madison Avenue 'professional looking and cutting edge' glossy magazine cover stuff, and have a very sophisticated looking and 'polished' look that looks like every other snazzy polished looking product. They would be just as fine if they all had plain black covers.

And, I like the weird lil LBB 'fighting ships' pics as much or better than the MT version of 'fighting ships', too.

 

[Eduardo]

(Oh yeah, I forgot the title this topic ...)

Uh .. I really really hate the way Traveller handles computers ... (yeah , that's it) ...

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Eduardo:
Any idiot can master computer driven art and drawing programs...

Eduardo,

Of course, any idiot who wanted to do that in 1978 would have had to code computer driven art and drawing programs and then built a computer that could run them.

And he'd have to come up with the idea of Photoshop ~15 years before anyone else did too.

Just a few minor hurdles, wouldn't you say?

CT had the kind of art that games of the era had. No better, no worse, and some of it still looks pretty good.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Eduardo:
[QB]Any idiot can master computer driven art and drawing programs and crank out slick Madison Avenue 'professional looking and cutting edge' glossy magazine cover stuff, and have a very sophisticated looking and 'polished' look that looks like every other snazzy polished looking product.

These are clearly the words of someone who has never tried using "computer driven art and drawing programs". Given that several of us here have tried (with varying degrees of success) to use those, I can tell you that it most certainly is NOT easy. Andrew and Mandarin Dude and Scarecrow are pretty accomplished with those, I'm pretty amateur myself. But I'll tell you that it's damn hard and a lot of work to use those programs.

It's fairly undeniable that "any idiot" can stick simple white text on a black cover with a coloured line on it though.

 

[Berg]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's fairly undeniable that "any idiot" can stick simple white text on a black cover with a coloured line on it though

It's funny how such simple and idiotic things become classic...

 

[Malenfant]

True, but that doesn't mean that detailed, complicated things can't become "classic" either

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
Still.... mediocre artwork is better than no artwork at all.

I'm not sure which I'd prefer, really. I think they can both be bad. A lot of people couldn't care less about illustrations. Me, I need them. An un-illustrated RPG can feel really empty and lacklustre. Equally a badly illustrated RPG can be utterly frustrating.

Originally posted by Eduardo:
Any idiot can master computer driven art...

I absolutely disagree.
Most idiots wouldn't have the feintest idea where to start with Photoshop or Studio MAX (I know, I've tried to teach a few) and of those that do, only a small minority understand it well enough to create something that doesn't make your eyes bleed.
Equally, any idiot can pick up a pencil. It doesn't make them a good artist.

There's nothing wrong with lineart, it's where I started. I would never hold CG images over lineart anyday. There's room for both. As I mentioned, Dietrich's work was excellent.
My problem is that Keith's drawings were poorly executed, badly rendered and had unimaginative and pedestrian pulp sci-fi designs. They may well have been standard for the day. It may well have even been excellent artwork in 1977. That's fair enough, it's still one of the things I hate about classic Traveller though.

Crow