What do you HATE about CT?
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
I don't hate anything about CT. You can't hate something that is just someone's "what if". However I have become really fruatrated with book 2 drives, They are not consistant even within the chart. I tried to do a spreadsheet to pick the most cost efective drives between book 2 and book 5. The only thing I accomplished was to get frustrated. Either the drives are incompatable to each other or those drawing up the book 2 chart got mixed up and just left it messed up. Either the engines are not the same from unit to unit or you can't get jump 5 ir 6 in anything bigger than about 2500 tons with these drives. Well it's late tonight or early tomorrow. I can't find my reprints and can't remember the exact details, I'll look it up later. Me for bed!
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There is a diconect with the biggest drives, but most of the table follows a progression of sorts.
Filling in the missing hull sizes help too
Filling in the missing hull sizes help too
rhoneycutt
SOC-11
I didn't like that the full game ranged through 8 books and several supplements for everything. And it even required a full game or two to have vehicles or map-based combat.
I eventually discarded it and used MT simply because most of the juicy bits were in one place < although there are things I abhor abou MT too >
I especially thought the UWP procedure was daft. I hated how CG made all other forms of transportation effectively worthless.
But overall, it was better and much cooler than any other game out there. The only other game that came close was "The Fantasy Trip" in terms of ease of story telling.
I eventually discarded it and used MT simply because most of the juicy bits were in one place < although there are things I abhor abou MT too >
I especially thought the UWP procedure was daft. I hated how CG made all other forms of transportation effectively worthless.
But overall, it was better and much cooler than any other game out there. The only other game that came close was "The Fantasy Trip" in terms of ease of story telling.
Honestly? GDW's editing.
The game itself, love it, onehundred-eleventy-percent less than three love it.
For instance:
The failure of Book 2 2nd ed, for instance, to include the -1 to hit, 2 rolls damage for pulse lasers (which had appeared in first edition.)
The failure of Book 2 to state clearly how missiles move.
The failure of Book 2 to state clearly how to employ sand in vector combat.
Typos in book 3 world generation.
Discrepancies in pricing between book 2 and book 3.
Gross inconsistencies in Special Supplement 3.
One or two more rounds of editing could have fixed a whole lot, and then I wouldn't be posting here at all.
Because the game itself is dear to me.
The game itself, love it, onehundred-eleventy-percent less than three love it.
For instance:
The failure of Book 2 2nd ed, for instance, to include the -1 to hit, 2 rolls damage for pulse lasers (which had appeared in first edition.)
The failure of Book 2 to state clearly how missiles move.
The failure of Book 2 to state clearly how to employ sand in vector combat.
Typos in book 3 world generation.
Discrepancies in pricing between book 2 and book 3.
Gross inconsistencies in Special Supplement 3.
One or two more rounds of editing could have fixed a whole lot, and then I wouldn't be posting here at all.
Because the game itself is dear to me.
It's funny how such simple and idiotic things become classic...
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, indeed, and the art of the original books had that 'created by a fan' feel, as did RPG's of the time had; that you weren't just buying a slick package of media corporation product, but a feel of somebody creating an interesting game in their spare time, and not a mass produced publishing house package. It truly felt like just some guy's imagination fooling around, and also fit the 'little guys go putzing around the Universe' feel to it. TNE tries to recapture that flavor and struggle, somewhat.I'm sorry, but photoshopping astronomy pics and working up ships that looks like they came straight from a mechanical drawing dept. at Lockheed don't cut it.
And yes, I do know about software; I have spent a lot of time coloring skins, designing plane parts, getting that 'metallic look' just right, and generally messing around with Micrografix, Adobe, Gimp, PaintPro, and all the rest, and it is far from the 'same thing'; I realize this must have hurt some feelings of those who invest a gazillion hours in fooling around with expensive art packages, but it doesn't add any real flavor or geeky tone to the game the original art did. It just looks like exercises in corporate media packaging. I wouold much rather have a page of meaty content than the latest in software rendering 'WOW!!! CHECK IT OUT!!!''s.
Of course, at the time of the LBB's there were few who were wound up tight about the game, no 'canonistas' having insane arguments over sand casters, (which wouldn't have normally been disturbing, except that they were completely sober) etc., just people a little different than the mainstream, looking for a new type of gaming ...
M
Malenfant
Guest
Why would you even want a game to look like it came out of someone's garage though? I sure wouldn't be interested in a game that looked like that today.
Photoshopping astronomy pics probably doesn't cut it because people tend to be aware of that when it happens. Doing nice 3D models of ships DOES certainly cut it - decent CG graphics can do wonders to get people's attention. But we probably both know that there is a lot more to making good artwork than just that.
I'm not remotely interested in "geeky tone" myself. I don't want a game that looks like it was produced by a bunch of amateurs. Whether the producer is a multimillion dollar megacorp producing 600 page glossy full cover hardbacks or just a bunch of guys running a small RPG business producing 200 page black and white PDFs, I'm not going to look at it unless the content itself is actually good IMO.
Photoshopping astronomy pics probably doesn't cut it because people tend to be aware of that when it happens. Doing nice 3D models of ships DOES certainly cut it - decent CG graphics can do wonders to get people's attention. But we probably both know that there is a lot more to making good artwork than just that.
I'm not remotely interested in "geeky tone" myself. I don't want a game that looks like it was produced by a bunch of amateurs. Whether the producer is a multimillion dollar megacorp producing 600 page glossy full cover hardbacks or just a bunch of guys running a small RPG business producing 200 page black and white PDFs, I'm not going to look at it unless the content itself is actually good IMO.
Pssht. *waves hand dismissively.* I could care less about high production values for an RPG. A boardgame, something more tactile, yeah, I like a little slickness there. But all I really want in an RPG is a nice, solid ruleset to start me off and then get the frell out of my way so I can roleplay. If you can produce that cheaply, then mazeltov.
For me, all LBB123 really needed was one more round of editing to fill a few gaps and typos in the book 2 rules and to correct a typo in book 3. And frankly, it didn't need that - because I happily kluged my way through the system for twenty odd years.
Every high-production level RPG I've run into has left me completely cold, because all those pretty pictures are telling me and my players what they should be imagining, and that for me goes against the raison d'etre of the RPG.
For me, all LBB123 really needed was one more round of editing to fill a few gaps and typos in the book 2 rules and to correct a typo in book 3. And frankly, it didn't need that - because I happily kluged my way through the system for twenty odd years.
Every high-production level RPG I've run into has left me completely cold, because all those pretty pictures are telling me and my players what they should be imagining, and that for me goes against the raison d'etre of the RPG.
Sorry but good design is important, and therefore so is good art.
Personally the best kind of art for an rpg (cover art) is rich colour comic art of the kind by Simon Bisley or Henry Flint (see the Judge Dredd game), or for those who remember the Larry Elmore covers for Star Froniters (that redhead with the big goggles and the laser rifle was hot!).
CGI is ok but needs treating, otherwise it just looks like CGI. Matting in real people usually ends up really bad, unless you really work it up, in which case you might as well have drawn it from scratch. CG people tend to be done in Poser, which has a few idiosynchracies (upper arms are weird), and so tend to look like clones. Perhaps one way is adding your CGI Type S to the fjord photo background you downloaded from National Geographic and then add in your mates and girlfriend in boiler suits in the foreground; then, rotoscope over the top. It'll end up looking consistent, rather than slightly odd.
But digital art techniques is not the purpose of this thread.
Dislikes from CT.
CharGen is too hot/too cold. I find basic too simple and extended too complex > somewhere in between would be nice.
The skills are inconsistent: why have different skills for revolver and pistol, yet pilots can fly any size of starship. No science skills (massive, massive omission!). Marines can't Carouse.
UWP are an active hinderance: they're not useful for play without working up, but they can limit what kind of world you can put where. ie: I want a mid tech low life world, but I can't find one within 20 parsecs of the pc's.
Ship design needs fixing. All the cod handwaving and explanations with hindsight for the fact that there are reactionless drives (utter b*ll*x, and completely not in keeping with the otherwise conservative technological outlook of CT), when what MT should have done was completely rewrite ship rules to reflect use of fuel in N-space. Another mechanic could have been imagined to limit jump and keep it within the parameters set (1 week jumps, max 6 parsecs etc). More opportunity for modding your ship, and predicated towards small, player run vessels rather than fleet battles.
Combat rules too unwieldy: I gave up with CT when I realised I'd have to cross reference 2 matrices with 2 weapon tables, and then a whole other set of these in book 4, all on seperate pages in the same book (ok, I am talking about the reprints here, but even the LLB's had stuff on seperate pages). Hate the fact that it's almost an auto hit against no armour with an SMG at close to medium range.
Otherwise it's brilliant. No other game, as far as I know, has anything close to Prior History. I'd have liked it to have an optional expansion, to reflect more personal events in pc life. i know there's a JTAS article to that effect but its not adequate to the task.
Personally the best kind of art for an rpg (cover art) is rich colour comic art of the kind by Simon Bisley or Henry Flint (see the Judge Dredd game), or for those who remember the Larry Elmore covers for Star Froniters (that redhead with the big goggles and the laser rifle was hot!).
CGI is ok but needs treating, otherwise it just looks like CGI. Matting in real people usually ends up really bad, unless you really work it up, in which case you might as well have drawn it from scratch. CG people tend to be done in Poser, which has a few idiosynchracies (upper arms are weird), and so tend to look like clones. Perhaps one way is adding your CGI Type S to the fjord photo background you downloaded from National Geographic and then add in your mates and girlfriend in boiler suits in the foreground; then, rotoscope over the top. It'll end up looking consistent, rather than slightly odd.
But digital art techniques is not the purpose of this thread.
Dislikes from CT.
CharGen is too hot/too cold. I find basic too simple and extended too complex > somewhere in between would be nice.
The skills are inconsistent: why have different skills for revolver and pistol, yet pilots can fly any size of starship. No science skills (massive, massive omission!). Marines can't Carouse.
UWP are an active hinderance: they're not useful for play without working up, but they can limit what kind of world you can put where. ie: I want a mid tech low life world, but I can't find one within 20 parsecs of the pc's.
Ship design needs fixing. All the cod handwaving and explanations with hindsight for the fact that there are reactionless drives (utter b*ll*x, and completely not in keeping with the otherwise conservative technological outlook of CT), when what MT should have done was completely rewrite ship rules to reflect use of fuel in N-space. Another mechanic could have been imagined to limit jump and keep it within the parameters set (1 week jumps, max 6 parsecs etc). More opportunity for modding your ship, and predicated towards small, player run vessels rather than fleet battles.
Combat rules too unwieldy: I gave up with CT when I realised I'd have to cross reference 2 matrices with 2 weapon tables, and then a whole other set of these in book 4, all on seperate pages in the same book (ok, I am talking about the reprints here, but even the LLB's had stuff on seperate pages). Hate the fact that it's almost an auto hit against no armour with an SMG at close to medium range.
Otherwise it's brilliant. No other game, as far as I know, has anything close to Prior History. I'd have liked it to have an optional expansion, to reflect more personal events in pc life. i know there's a JTAS article to that effect but its not adequate to the task.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I'm pretty much the same way, I'm certainly not impressed with flashy presentation for its own sake. But the point I was trying to make was that I certainly don't see anything advantageous about something that is produced in such a way that it looks amateurish and 'geeky'. Sure, it may be cheaper as a result and that's a bonus, but it's not going to attract me much because of that - I'm not going to buy a game just because it has some weird 'charm' to it.
I think I said earlier that while good art and presentation and layout doesn't necessarily make me buy a book (because what I'm really after is a good game that is edited properly), BAD art/presentation/layout is definitely going to turn me away from it.
Yes, well, there are thousands out there who want to get paid for playing around all day conjuring up stuff with their art software, and be 'professionals' in gaming, so naturally they're going to be very defensive on this subject; it beats getting a real job.
Most of us in the real world don't care for adding 25%-50% extra to the price of a module or rules set just for space-wasting graphics and a slick cover, just because it 'looks cool'. We were quite happy with the black covers and hand drawings in JTAS, and we had our own imaginations. Traveller is well enough established that it's products are going to stand or fall on the quality of writing and rules, i.e. content, not who did the artwork. That's what comics are for, not gaming.
People who buy comics are often the same people who buy games. All the shops that sell rpg's in my town are comic shops.
If you want to actually sell a game, you need good design. That does not necessarily mean lots of slick flashy illustrations on the cover. The LBB design is a classic piece of graphics: nice font, clean red line, good layout. In contrast, I don't like the T20 cover: the vargr is obviously a dog, the photo face is stilted, mixing ungainly with the cgi rendered background, to the blocky textures of the tower in the foreground.
If you can't fork out for art, then fine, don't include any. good graphic design is still necessary though. Bad art is the worst of all worlds, so avoid. They make an rpg look amateurish. Didn't matter so much back in the day- now it's crucial.
The DnD covers are very bad; it's just filler, costs money, and adds nothing to the product. In fact, makes it difficult to differentiate between the DMG and PH.
Good art, sparingly placed, adds a priceless amount of value to any product. No art at all is dry and uninviting (Star Fleet Battles, anyone?), and confusing (its often easy to work out where you are in a book by the pictures).
And, btw, I do get paid, and I am a professional artist, and I do have a real job. And to be honest, adding artwork is not as expensive as it used to be. The printing costs are low, and its not as if artists and illustrators are actually paid well, if at all. It comes down to page count, and since doing pages in multiples of 8 is most economic, there may be up to 7 pages to fill anyway. 25%-50% added to the price is a bit much if you ask me. Don't know the figures, but I'd expect full colour covers and interior art to be at a much lower margin than that!
If you want to actually sell a game, you need good design. That does not necessarily mean lots of slick flashy illustrations on the cover. The LBB design is a classic piece of graphics: nice font, clean red line, good layout. In contrast, I don't like the T20 cover: the vargr is obviously a dog, the photo face is stilted, mixing ungainly with the cgi rendered background, to the blocky textures of the tower in the foreground.
If you can't fork out for art, then fine, don't include any. good graphic design is still necessary though. Bad art is the worst of all worlds, so avoid. They make an rpg look amateurish. Didn't matter so much back in the day- now it's crucial.
The DnD covers are very bad; it's just filler, costs money, and adds nothing to the product. In fact, makes it difficult to differentiate between the DMG and PH.
Good art, sparingly placed, adds a priceless amount of value to any product. No art at all is dry and uninviting (Star Fleet Battles, anyone?), and confusing (its often easy to work out where you are in a book by the pictures).
And, btw, I do get paid, and I am a professional artist, and I do have a real job. And to be honest, adding artwork is not as expensive as it used to be. The printing costs are low, and its not as if artists and illustrators are actually paid well, if at all. It comes down to page count, and since doing pages in multiples of 8 is most economic, there may be up to 7 pages to fill anyway. 25%-50% added to the price is a bit much if you ask me. Don't know the figures, but I'd expect full colour covers and interior art to be at a much lower margin than that!
M
Malenfant
Guest
I'm not entirely sure what the chip on your shoulder is about artwork and people who do it, but how about you tone down the dismissiveness? You don't like artwork in games? Fine. But there's no need to be so derogatory about those who do or who work in that field.
I don't care for that either. But I do like and expect to see art in a game that is illustrative of its contents and that doesn't want me to tear my eyes out because it's so bad. And what little art in CT was generally atrocious IMO.
Well, you're a minority. Times have moved on, people expect more. Artwork is a very important part of an RPG, and unlike you most people don't feel that it somehow stunts their imagination by being there - it actually helps them to imagine the world described in the text. However, it's imperative that it is done right - art that isn't illustrative of the contents of the game can skew peoples' visions of the games in completely the wrong direction. SJG's Transhuman Space was a disaster on that front because the art that was made for it was entirely inappropriate for the contents (the spacecraft catalogue even contained pictures that weren't even remotely similar to the descriptions in the text at all). WW's Trinity/Aeon on the other hand was excellent at evoking the right feel for the game.
Well if the quality of the writing and rules are the determining factor then I'm quite sure that T5 will fall flat on its face...
People expect more from RPGs nowadays whether you accept that or not. It'd be great if everyone just focussed on the text content but that's just not how it is - now people expect to see good art, good editing, good layout AND good content. That's just the way it is, and if any RPG company that expects to be taken seriously feels otherwise then they're going to find that their product are very good dust-gatherers on the shelves.
(and FWIW, I think the T20 cover isn't bad, but I really don't like the Gateway Domain Book cover at all)
princelian
SOC-12
</font>[/QUOTE]It was a darned unusual way of doing things, BUT!!! it also let you condense incredible loads of material in a VERY small space!
An entire subsector's worlds, INCLUDING the map!!! on one page!
An entire character, including equipment, on a single index card!
A whole ship's crew and their relevant skills, on a single page!
We take information storage for granted in the 21st Century. I have spreadsheets full of relevant information about the d20 PCs and NPCs, all at my fingertips. <alt><tab> and I'm on the DM-PC who's accompanying the party and acts as the DM voice when need be. <alt><tab> and I'm on my combat sheet. Plug in a second monitor and I might not even need to <alt><tab>!
In the day, however, the ability to put in a UPP or USP or UWP as a string of single-digit numbers was an INCREDIBLY powerful technique.
What do I hate about CT? Nothing at the time; I don't really hate it at all currently. However, it doesn't compare well to <most> later Traveller products, and I definately include T20 here. T20 is by far a better GAME than CT was. Different, yes, but better. MT, with all its problems (and I agree that the task system turned the game more into roll playing than role-playing; I have another set of posts about that), was a better game than CT. More was defined, more background provided, more options at the players' and GM's fingertips.
But CT was the force that dominated forever our Traveller-o-phile destinies, yes.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
The Preponderance of Facial Hair in Artwork. I'm with Judge Dredd on that one.
Some hairstyles in general remind me of a bad night at a Billy RAy Cyrus concert (if there were any other sort of night.) Lot of mulletry/use of headbands.
People looking too 20th century bothers me too.
Non Representative Starship art.
Some hairstyles in general remind me of a bad night at a Billy RAy Cyrus concert (if there were any other sort of night.) Lot of mulletry/use of headbands.
People looking too 20th century bothers me too.
Non Representative Starship art.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
"I'm not entirely sure what the chip on your shoulder is about artwork and people who do it, but how about you tone down the dismissiveness? You don't like artwork in games? Fine. But there's no need to be so derogatory about those who do or who work in that field. "
In some cases there is. I had one guy wanting to charge 5000 for a cover, and 750 PER for B&W interiors, and the art was no where near Pro-Level. Also came across with a Sob Story about family life, etc.
There is no need to be degogatory at all, considering you can sneeze and knock over 50 Illustrators on the streets of New York City. Or Conceptart.org for that matter. There should be some level of reality in the demands of some of them, considering that some of them simply cannot take criticism, or want input as to direction. A good Artist for a game in my mind works with the creator, not against them by asking for too much, or being inflexible.
In some cases there is. I had one guy wanting to charge 5000 for a cover, and 750 PER for B&W interiors, and the art was no where near Pro-Level. Also came across with a Sob Story about family life, etc.
There is no need to be degogatory at all, considering you can sneeze and knock over 50 Illustrators on the streets of New York City. Or Conceptart.org for that matter. There should be some level of reality in the demands of some of them, considering that some of them simply cannot take criticism, or want input as to direction. A good Artist for a game in my mind works with the creator, not against them by asking for too much, or being inflexible.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
My guess is that many here (especially in this part of the forum) would disagree with you on that.
To be honest, I personally haven't given T20 anything more than a glance at the game store. But, CT is a pretty doggone good game.
It's my favorite Traveller edition.
Maladominus
SOC-14 1K
T20 is only a "more modern" version of Traveller than CT. More modern does not necessarilly mean better or superior. And I'm probably being too generous when I call T20 modern. =)
Saying that T20 is "better than CT" is about as subjective as saying that Britney Spear's pop music is better than 19th century Classical music.
Saying that T20 is "better than CT" is about as subjective as saying that Britney Spear's pop music is better than 19th century Classical music.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Better or Worse is wholly subjective. Each has its own merits and shortcomings. For my credit, CT smokes whatever you got. the Mother Game, if you will. Later incarnations seem to be exercises in how to overcomplicate simplicity, hence all the task bits and "Starship Design as Tax Return".
This Version Spectrum is born of personal tastes. Some LIKE tables for everything and such. Me, I want to know what the TU is like beyond its battles and laser turrets.
The tables and dice rolling conventions are nothing but rules without a depth to them. It is what is done with these rules and concepts that make the game great.
This Version Spectrum is born of personal tastes. Some LIKE tables for everything and such. Me, I want to know what the TU is like beyond its battles and laser turrets.
The tables and dice rolling conventions are nothing but rules without a depth to them. It is what is done with these rules and concepts that make the game great.
Similar threads
