What do you HATE about CT?

[FreeTrav]

I doubt very much that Aramis would want to play in any game that I would run - because I tend to play "fast and loose" with rules, concentrating on the idea that the game is for roleplaying, not rollplaying.

But then, I also take the heretical view that the three-fold path (GNS theory) isn't really a case of three different directions, but more a measure of game and player maturity, with Gamism being on the immature end of both, and Narrativism being on the mature end of both. That's not an entirely accurate view; it's a field, rather than a line - but it'll do for most discussion.

 

[rancke]

I doubt very much that Aramis would want to play in any game that I would run - because I tend to play "fast and loose" with rules, concentrating on the idea that the game is for roleplaying, not rollplaying.

IMO you get the most fun out of a mixture of the two. You may use roleplaying to decide on what to do, but then you evaluate the odds to figure out how to achieve it, and then you roll the dice to see if your plan works.

It really is great fun when a plan comes together.


Hans

 

[Icosahedron]

Aramis probably wouldn't like my laid-back games style either, though that's his choice and I wouldn't take offence. I wouldn't take offence at a player's demands, either, cos I don't feel threatened by them. If a player doesn't want to play the game I offer, that's his choice and he's free to leave.

I see my games as a Charismatic Dictatorship. I make the rules, I gather input from the players, I aim for a consensus, then I make a decision that I think will benefit everyone. And if I change my mind later, that's my prerogative.

Obviously, I'll be careful about changes, and talk over suggestions, cos if the players all walk out, I've got no game.

I'm usually up front about my houserules being fluid, so if a player feels uncomfortable without rigid structure, he'll usually not join, or leave within a few turns.

Sounds like Dean almost got his wish for a while there.
FYI Dean, this thread was set up in response to the fact that way back, a lot of CT players were trashing MgT on the MgT forum. It allows the kiddies to let off steam now and then.

 

[ShapeShifter]

Rules are tools (being merely suggestions, not immutable commandments) for the referee, not necessarily for the players. Players should more concern themselves with immersion and collaborative narration and leave the mechanics (conflict- or problem-resolution system, if you prefer) to the referee, or Confidant, as I prefer to style that participant in an RP session. After all, a player who demands to know all the rules is probably not one to trust in the skills and experience of anyone in the role of the referee. If a player trusts the referee, he would not feel insecure so as to demand that which is not within his jurisdiction.

 

[captainjack]

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.



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

Give it a rest. Aramis used the word demand, and probably poorly; you don't like it, so you are obviously trying to make as big a deal out of it as possible, probably so you can feel like some kind of antiauthoritarian hero. get over it.

Spend some time on the internet and you'll find out that sometime, just sometimes, words have more than one interpretation, and that going out of your way to hammer on the worst possible one doesn't make any friends.

Now, can we get back to bitching about the game that we love and not Aramis' gaming style ?

Did I mention the lack of missile rules ? Probably, but I hate it so much I'll talk about it twice.

Technically, the other thing I hate about CT is advanced chargen in MERC and etc. Completely poleaxed LBB1 &SUPP4 characters. Sigh.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

What do I hate about CT? That there is always someone who insists that CT should be played only one way, and no other, or "it isn't Traveller". There is also always someone who will insist that the rules must be changed (or completely discarded) to accommodate his or her idea of what Traveller should be.

Traveller is a game, not a religion. No one should be chastised as an apostate for merely suggesting that certain "house rules" could be in effect, or that certain canonical rules be ignored or modified. Nor should anyone look down on those who follow the rules for their apparent lack of creativity.

Somewhere in the middle lies the Golden Mean - the "RPG Prime Directive", if you will - which goes something like: "The most fun for the most participants most of the time."

Sometimes, the dragon wins; Sometimes, a player loses a character; and Sometimes, it's more of a grind than a game. But that's an RPG, people! Not everyone is going to be happy with the way things turn out each and every moment of each an every game session!

So sometimes, a referee ignores a rule; or sometimes a new rule is made up in loci just for a particular group of players during a particular set of circumstances. That's why Traveller has referees - people whose function is to interpret, disregard, or enact rules to maintain the Golden Mean.

Of course, some people believe that strict adherence to the letter of the law should over-ride every aspect of enjoyment. Such people would be welcome in my games, but would soon leave out of frustration for the lack of an iron-fisted and literal interpretation of the rules. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the rules stifle creativity, and should be abandoned in favor of personal expression. Such people would also be welcome in my games, but would also soon leave out of frustration at being unable to maintain a sense of extemporaneous anarchy within the gaming party.

On the gripping hand, those who believe in the Golden Mean would be welcome in my games, and would likely stay, because I try to balance the necessity of the rules with the enjoyment of the game (all else being equal, I tend to fudge on the side of enjoyment, even if I have to resort to the cinematic style).

As for CT itself? Mneh ... it is what it is; a framework for science-fiction role-playing, within which players and referee alike can construct a one-shot adventure, an epic story-arc, or an episodic session-by-session game for everyone's enjoyment.

Nuff Sed?

 

[RandyB]

Technically, the other thing I hate about CT is advanced chargen in MERC and etc. Completely poleaxed LBB1 &SUPP4 characters. Sigh.

I look back and see two games that are both called "CT".

One, I call "Basic Traveller" - B1-3 and S1-4. Basic Traveller is a relatively complete game, in the sense that it covers a reasonable range of gaming options in the sci-fi milieux (sp?) which can be modeled by those rules.

The other I refer to as "Advanced Traveller". Comprising B4-8 and S5-13, Advanced Traveller is a "second pass" through many of the game systems presented in B1-3, but still requiring B1-3 to play. Notably, the supplements listed are written for both Advanced and Basic (generally speaking). Also, relative to B1-3, B4-8 are a (mostly) complete expansion; however, relative to S1-4 (particularly S4), Advanced Traveller is incomplete, as it does not provide advanced chargen for the careers introduced in S4. Curiously, Megatraveller ("Advanced Traveller 2e") repeats this omission...

 

[captainjack]

Curiously, Megatraveller ("Advanced Traveller 2e") repeats this omission...

Which is one reason I never cottoned to MT. But that is another rant for another thread.

I'd go with Traveller and revised traveller. I've never felt that more complicated invariably meant more advanced; harder to learn, certainly, but not advanced. Advanced is marketing from D&D.

 

[shadowcat20]

The major downside of CT for me is a lack of character advancement after chargen. We always had to wing it or just play them as one mission throw aways. No set rules for adding skills after the dice stopped. Parties with uneven skill balances would stay that way for the duration. You could lose stats through ageing after Chargen but no gains were possable. It made everyone play 7 term characters by default.

 

[aramis]

The major downside of CT for me is a lack of character advancement after chargen. We always had to wing it or just play them as one mission throw aways. No set rules for adding skills after the dice stopped. Parties with uneven skill balances would stay that way for the duration. You could lose stats through ageing after Chargen but no gains were possable. It made everyone play 7 term characters by default.

There ARE rules for stat gains in play... nearly impossible to succeed, but they are there. Likewise, it's possible to gain two levels of skill in play per 8 years, and by careful reading of the rules, almost everyone in service should have an additional level in 2 skills already at level 1 while in service...

TTB p.103 or Bk2 p.42-43. Bk2 is an odd place for it... and most players never found it there, IMO.

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, there was a whole section on experience...

what a lot of people didn't like about it was that it allowed a character to keep gaining skills and characteristics at the same rate as they gained them during character generation.

This is a good thing IMHO

 

[aramis]

Emm, there was a whole section on experience...

what a lot of people didn't like about it was that it allowed a character to keep gaining skills and characteristics at the same rate as they gained them during character generation.

This is a good thing IMHO

Slower, actually. It's possible to get 4 skill levels in a term in CT. It's not possible to gain 4 levels of skill in a term in play in CT, and further, it take 8 years to make it permanent.

Term: 1 roll
First term: additional roll AND possible service skill
Commission: additional roll and possible rank skill
Promotion: additional roll and possible rank skill

2-3 maximum sustained rate per term... of which 2 are rolls, and one is fixed.

 

[rancke]

From the point of view of the players rather than the player characters, it takes a LOT longer to gain more skills once play has started. The dozen skills you get during character creation takes perhaps 15 minutes to gain. The next one takes the rest of the campaign (Depending somewhat on play style, of course).

Effectively there is practically no skill acquisition after play starts.

(Also, in our case, we just plain overlooked the rules for gaining new skill levels ).


Hans

 

[HG_B]

(Also, in our case, we just plain overlooked the rules for gaining new skill levels ).

There was always this...

"ALTERNATIVES
... Highly scientific or esoteric methods of improving personal skills and characteristics are logically available, provided the individuals search hard enough for them. Such methods could include RNA intelligence or education implants, ..."

 

[mike wightman]

Slower, actually. It's possible to get 4 skill levels in a term in CT. It's not possible to gain 4 levels of skill in a term in play in CT, and further, it take 8 years to make it permanent.

Term: 1 roll
First term: additional roll AND possible service skill
Commission: additional roll and possible rank skill
Promotion: additional roll and possible rank skill

2-3 maximum sustained rate per term... of which 2 are rolls, and one is fixed.

Roll a scout sometime...

 

[jawillroy]

What was always interesting to me about characters in CT is exactly this: that unlike D&D and Tunnels & Trolls (my main grounds for comparison at the time), the measures for a character's success were less explicit. In D&D, sure, you get more hitpoints, more spells, and so on; in T&T, your stats went up. With Traveller, success doesn't change the character drastically: experience is gained by the player over time, and ideally, the player plays the PC better as play goes on.

That's awfully abstract, admittedly, and it's probably why so much of Traveller falls into beancounting - since getting your character rich is the most concrete way of expressing success.

The game, as written, wasn't primarily geared towards building up a character's skill set: it was about taking a character with a skill set that you had limited control over setting up, and then trying to make that character succeed in adventures.

It's a different mindset than a lot of games, but I think it's appropriate to the setting. With D&D, "leveling up" makes sense: it's fantasy, and successful characters become larger-than-life, heroic, even demi-godlike as they continue to succeed. With Traveller, even the most experienced and canny veteran is still just a man (or dog-thing, or cat-thing or whatever) and is still vulnerable to misfortune. And that's as it should be, from where I'm sitting.

 

[shadowcat20]

Concerning the Book two skill rules.

Ummm...Now that you point it out and I reread it last night...yeah...I remember those now. We did see them, and try them, and say WTF this will never work. They were difficult, awkward, and damn near impossable to gain in the normal lifespan of a gaming campaign. 8 years for a perm Gun Cbt point add on. They were also written before Merc and HG so used 4 year training cycles rather than the 1 year cycles of the later books.

But, I was wrong...there were rules and we just did not care for them...my bad.

 

[RandyB]

Which is one reason I never cottoned to MT. But that is another rant for another thread.

I'd go with Traveller and revised traveller. I've never felt that more complicated invariably meant more advanced; harder to learn, certainly, but not advanced. Advanced is marketing from D&D.

I used "Advanced" to deliberately invoke the D&D marketing term, as it comes from the same era of RPG publishing. And MT was disappointing to me for that reason, as well.

 

[snapshotbygdw]

Nothing, been playing for 34 years now and I still love it!

 

[captainjack]

I used "Advanced" to deliberately invoke the D&D marketing term, as it comes from the same era of RPG publishing. And MT was disappointing to me for that reason, as well.

Ah. Well done. It certainly evoked that annoyance for me, too. I stand corrected.