What do you HATE about CT?

[TashaG]

This is going to sound funny since OT is 8 LBBs as it's core + 11 supplements + Alien books. I have to say that it like how easy it is to find stuff in CT.

I guess that dislike how combat is so deadly. I prefer more cinematic gameplay. Also 2d6 doesn't give much granularity to roll outcomes, so it becomes easier to have enough skill to make skill rolls not mean much. Those are the only things that I dislike about CT, and those are the same things that are annoying with every editon of Traveller ex Traveller Hero.

Heck with all of that, it's really the best version IMHO. Each Version after it has had issues with bad choices (ie I loved the Char Gen In MegaTrav, but hated how they changed Starship design). TNE looked pretty good, but even today it's hard to make head or tail out of the combat rules. FFS from TNE is supposedly good, but it seems like there are tables missing for starship hulls and other stuff (yeah I ahve the revised version). I hear FFS from t4 is actually worse, though I am going to give it look through to see if between the editions I can't figure one of them out. MongTrav, has a pretty decent Character Gen, that needs to be edited for clarity. It's the "good enough" edition. Nothing great, but good enough to work. Even TravellerHero which is what I play now has issues with the conversion work(which is fixable because Hero is a toolkit system).

What can I say CT is the first edition I came to learn to play. It's the one that annoys me the least.

 

[rancke]

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

No no no! I wasn't taking a swipe at you! Much less taking any sort of offense! I'm very sorry if you took my remark for an expression of passionate dislike. Or passion of any sort. I merely wanted to convey the impression that I thought that notion was ridiculous.

Um... We're not only just having a chat, we're having a friendly chat. I like to think of fellow gamers as kindred spirits (until and unless the opposite is proven). So if any remark of mine can be interpreted as offensive or as jocular, please go with jocular.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

IMHO, the newer games have all that built in detail so that the GM can tell a rules-lawyering player "see? it is right there in black and white, YOU CAN'T DO THAT", or to make a D&D analogy "you can't be a fighter/majic-user/thief/cleric/wu-jen/ninja". There are players out there that try to "game-genie" a ruleset so that they can play the <insert RPG name here> like they play a video game with cheat codes, so they don't actually have to role-play. And too many gms are tired of having to defend their decisions on their own logical argument so they want a ruleset where they can point out to said player why or why not they can do something.

CT is exactly the opposite from this problem. The CT ruleset is designed for the GM and the players (together) to make up the universe they play in as they see fit. And if there is an argument with a GM's decision, see rule #1: "The GM is always right" (alternately, they can look at rule #2: "If doubt continues, see rule #1"). GMing and world building take a significant amount of effort and time to install the level of detail that most GMs and almost all players want, and all of this effort comes out of the GM. GMs get tired of arguing details about their game (house ruled or not) because it is not writ in the HOLY TOMB of the RPGs ruleset and this rules-lawyering player won't agree because of it.(which is why some people don't like house rules, not from the game creator so they are not acceptable).

 

[fusor]

GMs get tired of arguing details about their game (house ruled or not) because it is not writ in the HOLY TOMB of the RPGs ruleset and this rules-lawyering player won't agree because of it.(which is why some people don't like house rules, not from the game creator so they are not acceptable).

Ironic, since it seems a lot of people think that what's been published for Traveller's original setting is "HOLY WRIT" and would probably happily argue that diverging from that in a game is "wrong".

 

[aramis]

Ironic, since it seems a lot of people think that what's been published for Traveller's original setting is "HOLY WRIT" and would probably happily argue that diverging from that in a game is "wrong".

See, the thing is this: If I say to players I'm running in the OTU, then I have just contracted to be running what is written.

If one is running in some other setting, house rules become much more acceptable... but choice of rules is a social contract by the GM as to how the fictional universe works. Past a couple tiny changes, it's time to create a house rules document to cope with it.

And Traveller is one of a very few games with a strong setting that are played as if generic; Even 2nd ed CT was no longer truly a generic ruleset. In the traveller line, CT1E is generic, and MGT is generic... and both so filled with traveller tropes that unless you house rule, you may as well play in the OTU.

Fastest way to break the OTU feel? altar the ship design paradigms.

 

[rancke]

See, the thing is this: If I say to players I'm running in the OTU, then I have just contracted to be running what is written.

Not to my way of thinking. What you've told me is that your game is set in the Third Imperium setting. I'd also feel entitled to expect certain story tropes -- the sort of adventures Anderson, de Camp, Piper, Vance and the like wrote stories about. But as for the rules, it could be any of the official Traveller variants or any number of other rules. When I announce a game set in the OTU, I always add the rules system to the information.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

I kinda have to agree with Hans on this one. If I say "we are in the 3rd I, or 2nd I, or..." does not necessarily means we are in the OTU, because it is my variant of the 3rd I,(2nd I, etc).

What CT did was not lock us in to just what was published. We understood that CT was a set of guidelines for our playsetting, and the constraints were what we put there, not a set of constraints fobbed on us by the Author(s). We could do what we want with a setting, as long as it was understood by all that this was GM X's variant.
The CT rules governing the OTU are pretty loosey goosey in that they are not a complete, wall to wall floor to ceiling description of the entire galaxy with a complete time continuum of history to help descripbe every world in exacting detail. Thus, even the OTU required much house-ruling by the GM, if nothing else, just to describe some part of the galaxy that wasn't covered in a sourcebook.

After all, every GM who has been doing it for a while knows that no matter how much you prepare, the players will inevitably lead you to someplace that you have not prepped. That is just what good players do.

 

[Icosahedron]

No no no! I wasn't taking a swipe at you! ... I merely wanted to convey the impression that I thought that notion was ridiculous.

Eh? o:

No worries, Hans, I know what you mean. I should have used a wink as well as a smile.

Question is, do you still think it's ridiculous or have I made my point?

I like to think of fellow gamers as kindred spirits (until and unless the opposite is proven).

Hans

Likewise.

IMHO, the newer games have all that built in detail so that the GM can tell a rules-lawyering player "see? it is right there in black and white, YOU CAN'T DO THAT",

Yeah, but as you say, Rule #1 is much more concise, and if anyone disagrees with Rule #1 they're free to play someone else's game.

Now if only I could attract a few more players...

I kinda have to agree with Hans on this one. If I say "we are in the 3rd I, or 2nd I, or..." does not necessarily means we are in the OTU, because it is my variant of the 3rd I,(2nd I, etc).

True. I rarely play in the 'official' 3I, but if I did, I wouldn't adopt all the rules, just the general setting.

 

[nats]

Eh? o:
True. I rarely play in the 'official' 3I, but if I did, I wouldn't adopt all the rules, just the general setting.

Well I would say I play in the 3I setting in that I use the standard ships designs such as Xboats, scouts and traders. In that manner I would guess most people play in the 3I setting to some degree. I also use Spinward Marches almost exclusively. However I also create my own starsystems for the odd adventures and dont worry about tying those into the Marches. I also add the odd weapons here and there and make my own rules up. However I dont use the 3I aliens as I think theyre rubbish, and I dont use the history of the 3I as I dont see it relevant at all to my games.

I would imagine most people are like this, they pick and choose.

 

[pendragonman]

Snip... However I dont use the 3I aliens as I think theyre rubbish, ...

Great. Now you have angered the Hivers. Beware of their mops!

 

[aramis]

Well I would say I play in the 3I setting in that I use the standard ships designs such as Xboats, scouts and traders. In that manner I would guess most people play in the 3I setting to some degree. I also use Spinward Marches almost exclusively. However I also create my own starsystems for the odd adventures and dont worry about tying those into the Marches. I also add the odd weapons here and there and make my own rules up. However I dont use the 3I aliens as I think theyre rubbish, and I dont use the history of the 3I as I dont see it relevant at all to my games.

I would imagine most people are like this, they pick and choose.

Hard to say... but that definitely has NOT been anything like my experiences.

Most of the Traveller GM's I have encountered either ditch the 3I entirely, or stick as close as they can to whichever edition of whichever game they are running.

Pretty much the same for every other system... few do a "pick and choose" mode... it's often just too much work.

 

[dean]

Bombs Away!

Sorry I dropped what was apparently a bomb of a posting in this thread and then was absent for a while.

First of all, let me apologize to anyone whom I may have unintentionally insulted or derided.

Secondly, let me state that my post was not an injunction of the people who would rather play something other than CT because they like a point-buy system, or whatever other features are deemed as desirable but were not even conceived of when CT was published.

My post was intended as an indictment of this entire thread!!!

What is the purpose of having a whole series of posts wherein people are invited and encouraged to trash the grandaddy version of our game? I don't see one.

I absolutely agree that if playing a 33 year old game is not your cup of tea, then playing something else is perfectly reasonable. I further concede that tomes of rules containing a ruling or process for every possible occurrence can be helpful to player and Ref. And sourcebooks that have lists of gear, equipment, weapons and vehicles are a boon when you are short of time and cannot ship up your own, and are a great place for the seeds of ideas.

However, to have a thread where people can come in and say: I hate this about CT . . . almost seems like a thread that deserved to be locked.

We debate the various merits of the different systems all the time. Every one has a preference for rules set, setting, house rules, task resolution systems, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The fact that CT made all this possible simply by it's creation and existence is reason in and of itself to respect the game and let it's failings lie in peace, IMHO. I vote for a thread lock.

 

[Jame]

See, the thing is this: If I say to players I'm running in the OTU, then I have just contracted to be running what is written.

If one is running in some other setting, house rules become much more acceptable... but choice of rules is a social contract by the GM as to how the fictional universe works. Past a couple tiny changes, it's time to create a house rules document to cope with it.

And Traveller is one of a very few games with a strong setting that are played as if generic; Even 2nd ed CT was no longer truly a generic ruleset. In the traveller line, CT1E is generic, and MGT is generic... and both so filled with traveller tropes that unless you house rule, you may as well play in the OTU.

Fastest way to break the OTU feel? altar the ship design paradigms.

On the other hand, I would generally look at it as telling my players "I'm running my variation of the OTU, using my variation of the rules. If there's something you like better about the as-written rules tell me and we can work it out." (My example would be to, if using the Starter CT books, rule that there are TL 9 hand computers which are 2000 Cr and 2 KG.)

 

[aramis]

On the other hand, I would generally look at it as telling my players "I'm running my variation of the OTU, using my variation of the rules. If there's something you like better about the as-written rules tell me and we can work it out." (My example would be to, if using the Starter CT books, rule that there are TL 9 hand computers which are 2000 Cr and 2 KG.)

I, as a player, would demand a sheet of the rules changes before playing. I want to know how the universe functions before playing.

 

[fusor]

I, as a player, would demand a sheet of the rules changes before playing. I want to know how the universe functions before playing.

Would you like a written contract before you start playing too? o:

If, as a player, you were to "demand" anything at my table, I wouldn't just kick you out of the game, I'd kick you right out of the house. You could ask for it, you could make a reasonable request and I'd probably do it, but you don't "demand". That's just rude.

EDIT: Furthermore, it's unreasonable to "demand" that. While a GM that you asked might be able to provide a list of the major rules changes ahead of time, something unforeseen may come up in actual gameplay that required an on-the-spot rules decision that wasn't covered in the list; so what would you do then? Would you throw a tantrum because it's not in the sheet of rules that you "demanded"? Again, if you did you'd be immediately ejected from my games.

 

[aramis]

Anything I as a player demand is a predicate to my playing. If I have reason to suspect an attitude like yours, I wouldn't even both going.

I don't trust other people not to totally F*-up the game with stupid house rules that make no sense. I'm much more lax about setting changes... but rules are important. I've walked out of many a game because the GM decided "I'm ignoring the rules for a while"... I don't have time for that kind of BS.

And based upon your prior posts, Fusor, you've nothing to worry about... I've no interest in ever playing in a game you're in.

Announcing the ruleset IS a verbal contract.

 

[fusor]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consistency and I'm all for making any changes clear to people. I just think your attitude at the table would be extremely rude and counterproductive - and I guess you have trouble finding games to play in (or at least to stay in) as a result.

 

[HG_B]

Announcing the ruleset IS a verbal contract.

So, if the contract is broken, do you go the arbitration or civil suit route?

 

[aramis]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consistency and I'm all for making any changes clear to people. I just think your attitude at the table would be extremely rude and counterproductive - and I guess you have trouble finding games to play in (or at least to stay in) as a result.

Never have had a problem finding games. Most people I game with see rules as an explicit contract as well. I find your reaction to the word demand excessive, however. I've no time to game with people who are in it for power trips, and if one looks at my game designs, most have the final rules authority being the group, not the GM.

 

[fusor]

I find your reaction to the word demand excessive, however.

Most people wouldn't. You'll find that it's generally considered more polite in civilized society to ask for something rather than to demand it.

People gather at a table to play RPGs to have fun. It's OK to have certain expectations and to be clear about those, but to sit down and "demand" things is overbearingly arrogant in my opinion.

I don't GM to "power trip" (and I find your insinuation that I do to be insulting) and I'm all for being flexible enough to give players some input, but that doesn't give players the right to impose their own style of play on the game and use the GM as a doormat. Everybody is there to have fun, including the GM. And it certainly doesn't mean that I should put up with players who are just plain rude about it.

I've no time to game with people who are in it for power trips, and if one looks at my game designs, most have the final rules authority being the group, not the GM.

So do you expect the group to come up with an unbreakable written contract too?