What do you HATE about CT?

[aramis]

Only four parts of T20 are even mechanically related to CT:
1) Prior Service. Very loosely.
2) Ship Design: HG, revised and expanded.
3) World and System "Design" - almost a straight lift from Bk6
4) Ships Economics - take Bk2 and add many options. It is better, in that most of the canonical designs now can make their payments by Double Occupancy of passengers, priority freight, security freight, and more spec cargoes available, thus allowing picking one that will be both sufficiently value dense and having sufficient mods to make carriage of ship-owned spec worth more than haulage of other's goods.

Of these, only #2 and #4 have any real ascertainable "improvements" and those are small.

 

[Eduardo]

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.

Somebodyelse started the art topic, not me. I think it's apparent that the artists are the ones with the chips on their shoulders here. Most people in the real world who took a chance and bought a book or a game because it had 'cool art' on the covers have been seriously disappointed, for the most part.

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.

I've never noticed much crossover. The kind of players that are into comics usually go with computer games, or the card games, that the industry took a hit over.

The hobby got started through hobby shops, usually near military bases, at least everywhere I lived, as an adjunct to historical wargaming, both board and miniatures, then moved to toy stores. Gamers like this have absolutely no problem with not purchasing the newer fluff stuff; if the industry wants to pander to the quick buck, it's fine with us, lots of companies that began with high quality game systems are gone, never to be seen again. A large segment of gamers have ignored the 'D20' stuff entirely, except for the occasional decent sourcebook, and my last visit to a games store saw a lot of unpurchased junk lying there on the shelves, all kinds of wonderful graphics notwithstanding. Ditto for Barnes and Noble's game shelf.

It's never going to a be large industry, no matter what a company does; it's now resorted to republishing 'revised official rules' ad infinitum, hoping everybody will buy the same repackaged games over and over again 10 times.The fan based rule variants and out there on the internet are better and add more to the games in a lot of cases than the companies have done the last few years.

 

[Zob10701]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
"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.

Well, as an artist myself I have to agree with the Baron here on most of his points.

However, I'd like to add that, in my opinion, any artist that "cannot take criticism" or take art direction has no business trying to be a commercial artist, which is what we're talking about here.

Pure art and commercial art are two very different things.

Commercial art is done by commitee. That is, more than one person having imput into what the final product will be.

Pure art is an expression of a singular vision. Someone working it out for him or herself, as it were.

As for fees... even we artists have no hard and fast rules. Generally, I charge what I think the client can pay. If you're a fairly large size corporation and you want a full color illo or some adwork, that's gonna run you several grand, even tens of thousands, depending on usage. If you're a gamer and you want a 4x5 or 8x10 full color illo of your character, that'll be $25 to $50.

After all, I live in New York and I don't want to be knocked over with 49 other artists when someone sneezes...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

As for me, I left that NYC scene because I kept finding that I could not get beyond the social nonsense that goes along with the art biz. There are many what I call "Trust Fund Dabblers" in it, to be sure. It was a little too high school for my like.

I actually sold a few pieces, which to me is good enough, but not that good to be able to come off acting like a big shot about it.

Example:
I once had to find a new studio mate (a thing much harder than finding the right house or room mate) and one guy came in, and the first thing out of his mouth was (not Hello, not how are you)
"I am <name deleted to protect the moronic>, and I make the Beautiful things..."

After throwing this person out, I sat down with a nice single malt and contemplated my fate some. Egotism is a part of some people's work, and lot of that is brilliant. But when its ego, with nothing backing it up, its infuriating to be sure. I tend to let the work speak, and leave the PT Barnum taactics to the insecure. Such antics explain why art sometimes gets a VERY bad rep.

Yonkers is Awesome!

 

[Zob10701]

Yeah, I know what you mean, Baron. That's why my day job is retouching. Making girls in print look pretty.

Trying to keep my daily bulls***t to a minimum is very important to me these days. I still have to deal with brain-dead art directors from time to time, but my motto is "I make any correction, no matter how stupid." Plus, I never, ever get emotionally invested in my work. My true creativity I save for my art at home.

P.S. I would describe Yonkers more as "quiet."

 

[Eduardo]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
As for me, I left that NYC scene because I kept finding that I could not get beyond the social nonsense that goes along with the art biz. There are many what I call "Trust Fund Dabblers" in it, to be sure. It was a little too high school for my like.

I actually sold a few pieces, which to me is good enough, but not that good to be able to come off acting like a big shot about it.

Example:
I once had to find a new studio mate (a thing much harder than finding the right house or room mate) and one guy came in, and the first thing out of his mouth was (not Hello, not how are you)
"I am <name deleted to protect the moronic>, and I make the Beautiful things..."

After throwing this person out, I sat down with a nice single malt and contemplated my fate some. Egotism is a part of some people's work, and lot of that is brilliant. But when its ego, with nothing backing it up, its infuriating to be sure. I tend to let the work speak, and leave the PT Barnum taactics to the insecure. Such antics explain why art sometimes gets a VERY bad rep.

Yonkers is Awesome!

LOL. We have an 'arts council' around here made up of trust fund babies, so I know exactly what you're talking about.

It's not like I hate art just for the hell of it. I've bought plenty of maps, just for their beauty. I also have a lot of those Harn maps, which I like. I bought the Azanti High Lightning boxed set just for the deck plans. etc., etc. There's a place for the good stuff; it just doesn't add anything to the main Rules sets and GM guides, and some of the additions; it belongs in a supporting role. Even in the PDF's, they're a pain for those of us who just want to print out the text, not use 20 gallons of ink, just because somebody thinks a half page pic on every other page of a 400 page PDF is really 'selling' it. Printing costs may be zero for the company selling PDF's, but they're still high for the end user out here running the stuff off on their HP's. I and others will stay with 'hardcopies' mostly, since we don't care for lugging our PC's that have all the spreadsheets and nifty programs and PDF's back and forth from the desk to the game tables and back. Yeah, we could 'get a laptop', still by far the worst value in computers ever invented, but to hell with that.

 

[Klaus]

It depends on the artwork. Don't like ADnD 3.5 interior art, on every page. Might be rich, but it's dull.

Artwork consuming ink depends on the type of artwork. Granted, full colour and toned b/w will be expensice; however, even a full page line art image would still use less ink than a full page of text. Deckplans don't use up much. Most of the interior art in T20 doesn't use more ink than text either.

Art doesn't have to cost more. And good art is a pricelss addition.

 

[Straybow]

I always compare RPG art to the art in Analog, since that's what I cut my sf teeth on. Most of the early RPG (D&D, T&T, CT) art definitely fell far short, and in general I could do better art myself.

What I hated about CT was the fixation with d6. Accustomed to using polys, I found that trying to squeeze things in to d6 or 2d6 was too limiting. Even the ranks were strangely limited to 6, and ignored enlisted service.

As you might imagine, the margines of the chargen pages of my LBB1 are filled with stuff.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

What do I about CT?

Might surprise some that a self-admitted Ct fanatic is here, but there area few things I never did like...

*Clunky combat system, especially character damage.
It got to the point where I would just say 'wounded', 'unconscious' or 'dead' for NPC's, and just about the same for PCs. Less dice rolling, more role play!

*Excessively detailed advanced character generation.
Eventually I streamlined PC generation, at least basic, so even kids could do it. Well, they rolled dice for their own game and I noted their rolls for random generation. MT actually got it better with the addition of cascades and special duty.

*Vector based starship combat
My regular group did this ONCE. After that, it was much more wargame oriented. I had people using the entire counter mix and board from the old STRATEGY I game (boy, am I dating myself) for a galactic war scenario.

*USP
Just as above, tried it a couple of times, them abandoned for the text description of book 3.

Still, after 29 years, I have kept most of my CT books and could not find a better system for MTU. Why? Flexibility. Change the body lines, file off the serial numbers, and you can fudge it to do anything you want. Without the tedious complexity of the HERO system or the head scratching inherent in GURPS.

By the way, the comment of rules/background being woven together excessively is right on. I followed the background, but never really played in it, developing my own instead.

Still, some will argue that it's outdated...like myself. Maybe I am just a crochety old fool...

"When I was your age, we just had a d6! And we liked it!"

 

[jawillroy]

>got to the point where I would just
>say 'wounded', 'unconscious' or 'dead' for
>NPC's, and just about the same for PCs. Less
>dice rolling, more role play!

A very sensible line to take.

>Excessively detailed advanced character generation

^_^ 'zackly why I don't bother with it!

There's a growing resurgence of us crotchety old fools, 'round here!

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
*Clunky combat system, especially character damage.
It got to the point where I would just say 'wounded', 'unconscious' or 'dead' for NPC's, and just about the same for PCs. Less dice rolling, more role play!

One man's trash is another's fabulous find, I guess.

I always loved the CT combat system. Sure, I tweak it a bit in my game, but I love how damage reduces your ability to do things in a simple and easy method.

CT combat has always been, for me, one of Traveller's shining moments.

 

[aramis]

I liked CT Combat well enough until Striker came along, then MT.

MT is my personal ideal... the long term reductions of CT, and the lack of needing to refigure in the heat of combat unlike CT.

 

[Merxiless]

What I hated about it was very little:

That most people locked into D&D weren't willing to try anything new.

What I liked:

The people that tried my Traveller game, well, I am still running Traveller for them, nearly 25 years later.

We've borrowed DGP's Task system, and, XP system, and added in stuff from TFG Heroes for tomorrow.

Quote:
"Why would you even want a game to look like it came out of someone's garage though?"

Because it was GODDMANED INEXPENSIVE. ~8.00 a book? Bring it on!

LIGHT WEIGHT? A few ounces of weight? Bring it on!

EASY TO CARRY?
3 little, tiny, miniscule books that I could put into the side pocket sleeves of a $0.12 paper folder.

I also put in my graph paper for deck plans, in the same folder with the little foldable three hole punch clips, and some character sheets.

Add in a nice series of color maps, done with markers for a few planets, and solar system diagrams, all protected by plastic sheet protectors?

Sector chart, and the whole freaking universe on one page?

Bring it on! ^ 3

Total dice used: One red, one white.

One handed effort, to port a whole campaign. When we went to the Persian Gulf in 1988, that little folder kept myself and 6 guys gaming Traveller for 6 months 4+ nights a week, after working hours.

I've got a shelf of the oh so popular d20, that was a TOTAL Waste of money, and is soon to go on ebay, as UN- repeat UN-Playable.

Traveller is never leaving my house, until you pry it from my cold dead dice rolling hand.

 

[ravells]

I'm taking a bit of a flyer here in thinking that people who bought CT when it was in its infancy (i.e. the old fogies here) like me, are less likely to knock its production values for a number of reasons, all of which have been mentioned, but most of all I think because of the reason given by Eduardo - RPGs in those days were in their infancy and the fact that whole industry was so amateurish was what gave it its underground charm. Back in the late 70s and early 80s virtually nobody knew what RPGs were. Hell, Science Fiction was for boffins ('geek' didn't really exist then) and esoteric. The films 'Star Wars', 'Alien' and 'Bladerunner' changed that but it would only be in the 1990s that SF became truly mainstream.

In my experience, back then, RPG players tended to have more in common with wargaming (again a very esoteric pasttime in those days)than comics.

Looking back on it, it was like being part of the early era of spaceflight or Woodstock. I loved CT, at that age I thought it was incredibly complicated - the chargen tables seemed to provide endless variety. Now of course they appear very simple to people who have grown up with RPGs but back then, they were the dog's round objects and then some. It fit in so well with the sort of SF books that were being written (Clarke, Asimov, Vance, etc). Back then computers *were* huge, expensive complicated beasts. We were lucky enough to have one in my school. It ran on punched paper tape, the 'monitor' was a teletype and the best it could do was play naughts and crosses badly.

For me Classic Traveller is a classic - I wouldn't have changed a thing about the game system in the way it played and fitted into my world view back then in 1983.

Speaking of bad art do you remember this? Apologies to those who go blind after seeing it.

 

[jrients]

Ravs, some of us are of the opinion that module B2 contains some excellent art.

 

[ravells]

I like the disclaimer under the first picture: 'Not an Erol Otus Illustration'.

I was only referring to the cover art illustration (I thought the one of the mad hermit was very evocative) but I do accept the subjectivity of the whole issue. Anyway, enough from me on this as it's going off topic.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

But ... but ... that's one of my favorite D&D illustrations!

 

[Merxiless]

The art doesn't matter to me.

I'm one of those old Traveller veterans that actually prefers the William H. Keith art.

It said "Star Wars".
It implied "Foundation", and perhaps "Dune".

And I agree. Back in the day, Classic Traveller Character gen seemed very complicated. Now it's likely the simplest system out there, after Tunnels & Trolls.

Again, I prefer the simplicity inherent in The Traveller Book, rather than 10+ companies mushing out crap for d20, that doesn't fit each other, is imbalancing, whatever. What GDW had was a lot closer to ONE VISION than most anything out there today, except for perhaps The new d20 Forgotten Realms.

Knowing now where gaming has gone, if I could step into a time machine, and go back 25 years, I'd still play Classic Traveller in the 80's, because the directions games went in the 90's...and especially d20...it's not the same, not nearly by a long shot.

 

[aramis]

I always saw the Dune, Star Wars, and a few others in Traveller. But in 1986, I got handed a copy of a novel that changed my TU forever: Sten. (Cole & Bunch.)

I never saw the foundation tie-ins because I avoided Asimov.

I have spent the last 20 years trying to figure out relevant MT stats for a Willygun.... (P/A 50/6 D4 DS0.5m HEAP)

But that being said, many authors can be blamed for bits, including Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, Clarke, and Asimov...

 

[Zob10701]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I always saw the Dune, Star Wars, and a few others in Traveller. But in 1986, I got handed a copy of a novel that changed my TU forever: Sten. (Cole & Bunch.)

I never saw the foundation tie-ins because I avoided Asimov.

I have spent the last 20 years trying to figure out relevant MT stats for a Willygun.... (P/A 50/6 D4 DS0.5m HEAP)

But that being said, many authors can be blamed for bits, including Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, Clarke, and Asimov...

Holy crap, dude! I LOVE the Sten series.

I also liked Bunch's Last Legion series (until Homefall) and his Star Risk, Ltd. stuff. It's too bad he's gone as Star Risk was going pretty good.

Cole's got a great blog going at http://www.alcole.blogspot.com/ where he chronicles their early adventures in television. The Galactica 1980 stuff is hilarious!