What do you HATE about CT?

[RainOfSteel]

He would need to finish his grav pong.

 

[aramis]

Something to be avoiding in all RPGs at all costs, or at least, the dreariest most depressing elements of it, at least, unless you like that, boy. (SLA Industries is a pretty dark game... You should look over the Blam! RPG, too.)


Trying to pick up some skills. Auto Rifle-2, Mechanical-1, and Revolver-1 does not a character make.

If you need Medical-3 to be considered a Doctor, then no it isn't. From just about the only example available, level-3 is professional.

You misunderstand the technical meaning of "professional," and the other party is using the same meaning you are.

Technically, a professional is one who holds a post-baccalaureate degree in an employable field.

A guy with an MS in Comp Sci should be Electronics 1 and Computer Science 2 if he's hardware side, and Comp 3 Electronics 0 if programming/software side. He's a professional.

The guy with Computer 1 may in fact be a career programmer. he's certainly ABLE to write programs and make money doing so... more than enough to support himself... by the Bk1 and bk2 rules.

Level 1 is career level - inherently competent. EMT3 or 4 level... Paramedic. Or an LPN. Or a Navy Corpsman.

Autorifle 2 is a sharpshooter, Mechanical 1 is a fully trained, fully competent mechanic, and revolver 1 is a decent shot. Literally, the guy who shoots targets 3x as far as the ordinary naval troop who's been familiarized with it.

Level 3 is 4 years of intense training in field, with no real life. THAT's a Doctoral degree in Medicine or Law... and is sufficient to not have to make a roll to pass one's boards. Level 3 in Steward is the guy whose been pulling Gopher and Julie's* shifts for 6-8 years or more...

The average Urban police officer should be Pistol 1 Legal 0, maybe legal 1. Or, in more civil, less nab'n 'em focused forces, Legal 1 Pistol 0.

*Love Boat reference

 

[sfchbryan]

How ridiculous. The CT career system creates barely-skilled about-to-be-old-men in space.

Learn the difference between role-playing and roll-playing. You will have more fun.

 

[rancke]

Learn the difference between role-playing and roll-playing. You will have more fun.

Personally, I've always found a 50/50 mix of role-playing and roll-playing to be the most fun of all.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

Snip...

Trying to pick up some skills. Auto Rifle-2, Mechanical-1, and Revolver-1 does not a character make.

RoS, you just don't get it. Autorifle 2 hits most regular targets on a 6. Enough for match-play, or mafia hit man, or wet-work in a banana republic for your government.

Revolver-1 gets you on most rural sherif's forces. Lot's of fun busting meth labs. Watch "Justified" for ideas.

Mechanic 1 is the average mechanic at your car dealership, better than your average home mechanic. Might actually know how to up the horsepower with out potentially throwing a rod. Knows that just adding horsepower doesn't help without more torque. Hot-rodder? Black-market vehicle maintenance?

If you can't play it, just say you haven't got the RP skills. Don't blame the game mechanics. Doing that is claiming to be the victim, and none of us are victims here.

 

[aramis]

Actually, Autorifle 2 is pretty damned lethal.

Skill expertise 2 is a +2
Dex is -1 for ≤7, and +2 for ≥10.
Single shot, vs none/jack, that's +3 more (or +6 for a 4rd burst)
Range to 500m single shot is -3 (or -2 for burst)
Range to 250m single shot is -1 (+1 for burst)

500m shot is +1/+2/+4; needs a 7+/6+/4+ on 2d6, by dex, single shot.
500m burst is roll two times at +5/+6/+8... only dex ≤7 misses... and then only 2.777% per roll... less than 1‰ chance of not hitting.
250m SS is +3/+4/+6... dex 10 hits automatically. Dex 8 misses under 9%.
250m burst is +8/+9/+11...

Oh, and that's before adding the scope's +4 or subtracting the target's evading -4. But thse cancel. A dex-8+ sniper with an autorifle and scope kills one man per round at 50-250m, and autohits his 2 buddies within 1.5m as well (their DM-3 for being danger space is massively overcome...

Shooting guys in combat is 6 points worse. AR2 Dex 10 still only needs a nat 3 to hit to 250m, and rolls twice, and needs a 6+ for the buddies.

 

[rancke]

Boy, what do you think real life is?

Action/Adventure role-playing isn't real life. That's more or less the point.

Second, a level 1 IS a professional level.

Assuming that's true (and I don't think it was ever stated flat out anywhere), the rules have a huge problem with granularity.

I've always assumed that Skill-1 was apprentice/amateur level, Skill-2 was journeyman level and Skill-3 was master level (or whatever corresponded to that for non-craftsman skills). Like RainOfSteel, I got that from just about the only explicit example that I can recall, the one about Medical-3 being needed to be a doctor.


Hans

 

[skyth]

Another problem with CT (That was fixed in MT) is that being an ace shot with a revolver doesn't help you at all if you pick up an auto-pistol.

However, an expert pilot is just as good in a fighter as a battleship.

 

[Vargas]

First of all, what's that character doing having a career after his Army duty? Shoulda been adventuring already.

Lotsa people have careers after military, and other, service. On the hairy end of the spectrum are those former Special Ops types who work for the Blackwaters of the world. Used to be a fair number of former MPs became cops after mustering out. (Don't know how true that is today). And don't forget those former officers who go work in the private sector after "retiring".

 

[Dead during chargen]

Revolver-1 gets you on most rural sherif's forces. Lot's of fun busting meth labs. Watch "Justified" for ideas.

Mechanic 1 is the average mechanic at your car dealership, better than your average home mechanic. Might actually know how to up the horsepower with out potentially throwing a rod. Knows that just adding horsepower doesn't help without more torque. Hot-rodder? Black-market vehicle mainten

Just as a complete tangent on how much training it can take for employment, the U.S. Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles breaks down the "Specific Vocational Preparation" for jobs like this:

Level Time
1 Short demonstration only
2 Anything beyond short demonstration up to and including 1 month
3 Over 1 month up to and including 3 months
4 Over 3 months up to and including 6 months
5 Over 6 months up to and including 1 year
6 Over 1 year up to and including 2 years
7 Over 2 years up to and including 4 years
8 Over 4 years up to and including 10 years
9 Over 10 years

The broad groups are "Unskilled" at SVP 1-2, "Semi-skilled" at SVP 3-4, and "Skilled" at SVP 5+.

Accountants have an SVP of 8. Auto mechanics have an SVP of 7. Running the fry machine at McDonald's is a 2, IIRC. GPs and Internists both have SVP of 8. The whole list is stupefyingly comprehensive but a little dated. Drill instructor is SVP 4, though, which stops just short of saying that if you can complete basic and get started on your advanced training, then you're qualified to be a drill sergeant. Armor reconnaissance specialist is SVP 5, Vulcan crewmember SVP 3. Redeye gunner (did I say dated?) SVP 3.

Overall, autorifle-2, mechanic-1, revolver-1 after 4 years seems fairly consistent with the way the U.S. Department of Labor views training. Maybe a weird tangent, but they seem a decent source for info about how long it takes to be trained to do a job.

 

[dean]

The thing I hate most about CT is that here and now, people decry CT as too "limited", not including enough "detail", not being "complete", and not having everything they want in the package. Why can't we play aliens? Why isn't there a complete equipment supplement? Why are there so many errors, contradictions and typos (back in the days before computer driven editing and printing)?

One Thousand Nine-hundred Seventy Seven CE. 'Nuff said, really.

TO expand that thought, however; and as the second RPG that sold any sort of reasonable number of mass-market copies. Pioneer in it's field. Quite a financial risk to actually decide to even publish, given the lack of evidence that the genre would even be or become popular to any degree. A niche market product for the day, at best. Known only to nerds, geeks, and dorks.

Almost every RPG (including all the MMORPG computer games) that followed it (and OD&D) owes something to the ideas that those products began. Anyone who kicks it away because they have been spoiled by 33 years of improvements and refinements, playtesting and experience is not using their brain, much.

I like the minimalist approach myself. I don't WANT to have to look up every niggling little detail in a vast tome. I am the REF. Don't like it, start yer own Traveller campaign (I'll play!)

 

[rancke]

Almost every RPG (including all the MMORPG computer games) that followed it (and OD&D) owes something to the ideas that those products began. Anyone who kicks it away because they have been spoiled by 33 years of improvements and refinements, playtesting and experience is not using their brain, much.

There's a reason why people think CT is deficient in 33 years' worth of improvements and refinements. It's pretty obvious, really. This is today, not 33 years ago. CT was amazing, 33 years ago. But, and this is the point that makes quite a bit of difference, it's not 33 years ago any more.


Hans

 

[fusor]

Anyone who kicks it away because they have been spoiled by 33 years of improvements and refinements, playtesting and experience is not using their brain, much.

I'd say that's an excellent reason to "kick it away" actually. I don't want to play a game from 1977 - I want to play a game that does have all of those improvements and refinements accumulated from the rest of the 30+ years of industry, that ideally is from the current century, or at least from the past 20 years. I have no interest in playing an antiquated fossil (whether that is the game itself or the character I play in that game ).

And thanks for the gratuitous and unnecessary insult, by the way. o:

 

[aramis]

Warning About the Tone of Discussion in this Thread

Someone complained about a particular post upthread, and so I reread the last couple pages of the thread.

There is a lot of snark, triumphalism, and generally nearly open-hostility tone. Not just the reported post, but a number of others including the responses to that post.

Be polite, and don't give into the urge to troll/flame/snark, please.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'd say that's an excellent reason to "kick it away" actually. I don't want to play a game from 1977 - I want to play a game that does have all of those improvements and refinements accumulated from the rest of the 30+ years of industry, that ideally is from the current century, or at least from the past 20 years. I have no interest in playing an antiquated fossil (whether that is the game itself or the character I play in that game ).

And thanks for the gratuitous and unnecessary insult, by the way. o:

The standpoint of most CT players (IMO) is that later games added a LOT of unnecessary waffle, and quite often it's easier for a Ref to add things he likes to CT as houserules rather than try to subtract things he doesn't like from the newer stuff.
Taking MgT as an example, I like the MgT chargen, particularly point buy, and I've adopted it into my game, but there's no way I want to adopt the MgT ruleset wholesale and try to trim out all the many sections I don't like.
Each to their own.

As Dean said:

I like the minimalist approach myself. I don't WANT to have to look up every niggling little detail in a vast tome. I am the REF.

 

[rancke]

The standpoint of most CT players (IMO) is that later games added a LOT of unnecessary waffle, and quite often it's easier for a Ref to add things he likes to CT as houserules rather than try to subtract things he doesn't like from the newer stuff.

I cannot properly express my opinion of that notion without annoying the moderators. Let me just say that I've never felt that ignoring a rule was as difficult as inventing one.

Besides, the whole point of a commercial product is to relieve the referee of the chore of making up basic stuff of his own, leaving him more time to come up with (or elaborate on) adventures and settings and NPCs and all that kind of good stuff.

EDIT: Just to be clear: Just because something new is added to the rules doesn't automatically means it's an improvement. It can be a mistake. But on the whole, 30 years of experience with RPGs do give fifth generation (or whatever generation we've reached by now) games a good chance of having picked up a trick or two along the way.


Hans

 

[Nightwind1]

A sidebar explaining character death during character generation? It would have meant nothing. The entire idea is wrong-headed in the majority of cases. Players hate it, to start with. They do not have time to waste working on character generation that is already going to give them something they didn't want, only to have it interrupted with death and a complete waste of all time expended. The idea that it forces players to make choices about whether they continue or not irrelevant. Characters with few terms are even more incompetent than normal. On the first term you get two to four skill points (not counting eligible freebies), and you only get three or four if you get a commission and a promotion. Wow, two to four skill points, at most. An Army player could start with Air/Raft-1 and Admin-1; so much for that martial-artist/rifleman that was desired. I continue to stand against this in every possible way.

That people may die during their service may be realistic, but it is not playable or desirable except maybe to a handful who enjoy tossing aside their work because they have unlimited amounts of time to try again (and actually enjoy doing that).

Which players hated it? Do you speak for all players? I've played Traveller since 1977, and didn't have a problem with dying during CharGen or with 1 or 2 term characters. And we didn't try to get "desired" character types, we enjoyed trying to figure out the characters we got through generation. It requires more imagination to figure out a character from rolls and skills acquired than it does to go in with something already in mind.

IMNSHO

 

[fusor]

It requires more imagination to figure out a character from rolls and skills acquired than it does to go in with something already in mind.

I don't believe it does, particularly since "figuring out a character from rolls and skills" is little more than just reading off the results from tables.

But then I guess there are two competing views of character generation here: one is that the player shouldn't come into the process expecting anything and should play whatever the dice decide, and the other that the player should come into the process with a character concept in mind and should be able to create that using the chargen system.

Personally - in my opinion - I think the random generation method is a complete waste of time. If I'm expected to spend a several hours playing a character in a game, then I want the character to be something that I'm willing to invest the time in, and the chances of getting something like that completely randomly are pretty slim (especially given the way that Classic Traveller character generation works). And why would I waste my time in or before a gaming session rolling up characters until I find one that I am comfortable playing, when I could just skip all that and choose the skills and career path directly instead?

I can see that other people like that approach though, but I have no time for it myself (literally).

 

[shadowcat20]

I guess in all the years I have role played it boils down to 2 major types of players when it comes to characters. Those with a preset character in mind when they generate a new one and those who go with the flow and play what they get.

Both have their advantages and can be fun. You want a trooper you go merc and generate from there. You want a new experiance you go for the draft and play what you get.

That was the great thing about old Traveller. 90% of it was using your mind and the stats were there for a boost at certain points. That other game in it's 4th or 5th round has gotten to the point where you have to micro manage everything to have a viable character.

For some that is fun, but not for me.

With all the new games out there lately I have been looking back at my Star Fleet Battles, LBB Traveller, Ogre Minitures, and even my 1st Ed D&D stuff. Simple is starting to appeal to me again.

In the end we do what is fun for us. If CT is too simple play something else. Not everyone likes the same thing.


Now to set my C-64 back up and hope the drive is not too whacko to read all my old games.........

 

[Icosahedron]

I cannot properly express my opinion of that notion without annoying the moderators. Let me just say that I've never felt that ignoring a rule was as difficult as inventing one.

No offence intended, Hans. Chill, man, we're having a chat.

I agree, writing a rule is harder than ignoring one, but writing five pages of fun houserules for a simple ruleset is easier and less confusing than crossing out a thousand disliked paragraphs from 380 pages of a 5th generation mega-tome.

Do I... Add MgT chargen to my CT game, or
Use MgT as my new base and leave out Skills and Tasks, Combat, Spacecraft Design, Spacecraft Operations, Space Combat, Psionics, Trade, World Creation, then add in LBB5 Ship design, LBB6 World Creation, LBB7 Trade, etc...

I'll leave you to figure out the relative difficulty.

Besides, the whole point of a commercial product is to relieve the referee of the chore of making up basic stuff of his own, leaving him more time to come up with (or elaborate on) adventures and settings and NPCs and all that kind of good stuff.

If the commercial product is in tune with the GM's world-view, it does just that. The more widely the views diverge and the longer the ruleset, however, the shorter it falls from that ideal.

EDIT: Just to be clear: Just because something new is added to the rules doesn't automatically means it's an improvement. It can be a mistake. But on the whole, 30 years of experience with RPGs do give fifth generation (or whatever generation we've reached by now) games a good chance of having picked up a trick or two along the way.
Hans

Sorry, but no matter how much development TNE had (for example), I didn't consider it to be 'better' than CT, just a helluva lot longer. My opinion of most modern rule systems is similar. There are some interesting current 'Indie' games, often short and free, that have some very good rules I can 'borrow', but on the whole, modern games have an attention to detail that I find boring, restrictive, pointless, and (most importantly) often at variance with my own ideas - and every variance needs 'correcting'.
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I prefer the older, freestyle games.

That was the great thing about old Traveller. 90% of it was using your mind and the stats were there for a boost at certain points. That other game in it's 4th or 5th round has gotten to the point where you have to micro manage everything to have a viable character.

For some that is fun, but not for me.

Yep.