captainjack
SOC-13
Threadcrapper ! Worse, constructive threadcrapping !
(yes, the above is a joke. )
What do you HATE about CT?
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
Threadcrapper ! Worse, constructive threadcrapping !
(yes, the above is a joke. )
No correction intended. Just explanation.
Jackofjacks
SOC-4
There's always one....
Yes, shame on you. I've avoided commenting on this thread, precisely because all I can say is that I like the game and its held my attention for errr, is it really that long...
Yes, YES, thats what I hate about CT, I can't get rid of it. I play with something else for a while, but it keeps drawing me back!
Right now I should be doing my taxes, but NO. I'm surfing and responding to CT threads, why! I don't understand it, but I'm sure the taxman will understand if I put off those taxes till tomorrow... I'll blame MM, its his fault.
Well said! Hear, hear!
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
If you multiply out Bk2's drive table (tonnage x rating for a given letter) then take the largest number, you get:
A 200
B 400
C 600
D 800
E 1000
F 1200
G 1200
H 1600
J 2000
K 2000
L 2000
M 2400
N 2400
P 2400
Q 3000
R 3200
S 3200
T 3600
U 3600
V 4000
W 5000
X 6000
Y 8000
Z 12000
This always annoyed me. Bk 2 isn't formulaic, and isn't a multi-region formula, either...
Edit: Just FYI, I went looking for the post quoth and found it, then had to clean up a board-migration duplicate post issue as it annoyed me...
Last edited:
I don't "HATE" anything about Classic Traveller. "HATE" is a very strong word, especially for a beloved make-believe game.
In the framework of its release date, Classic Traveller was probably one of the best games out there in 1977. It is still, in terms of many concepts, a gem of a game. However, I think that the CT reprints, which change very little of the 1977 rules (or their early 1980's slightly edited print run) have aged quite poorly. In today's gaming world, the reprint book looks unappealing to players unaccustomed to Classic Traveller - almost no art, dry writing and obscure rules. It is still a gem, though - but this gem deserves to be polished, re-formatted, re-worded and re-layed-out with good art. MGT aimed to do that, and did it quite well, despite its weaknesses (too many skills IMHO, long chargen, not-so-good supplements).
But I'd LOVE to see CT re-published in a modernized format.
In the framework of its release date, Classic Traveller was probably one of the best games out there in 1977. It is still, in terms of many concepts, a gem of a game. However, I think that the CT reprints, which change very little of the 1977 rules (or their early 1980's slightly edited print run) have aged quite poorly. In today's gaming world, the reprint book looks unappealing to players unaccustomed to Classic Traveller - almost no art, dry writing and obscure rules. It is still a gem, though - but this gem deserves to be polished, re-formatted, re-worded and re-layed-out with good art. MGT aimed to do that, and did it quite well, despite its weaknesses (too many skills IMHO, long chargen, not-so-good supplements).
But I'd LOVE to see CT re-published in a modernized format.
Otto Harkaman
SOC-12
Well said, plus I enjoy the conversation of this community. Another thread asked where is your Traveller Shanghai (Shangri-La), well right here
Look at this:
Page 42, Special Considerations, Cover and Concealment (omission): Cover is any solid object between an
attacker and defender capable of protecting the defender from a weapon attack. Concealment is any object that
prevents viewing or sighting of the defender. Cover may also be concealment, concealment is not necessarily cover.
Targets are considered under cover if they are behind a solid object which a shot cannot penetrate (such as a wall,
rock, or heavy bulkhead). An individual under cover cannot be attacked; an individual in concealment cannot be
attacked unless the attacker has some reason to shoot into the area. A target may be partially concealed by walls,
objects, atmospheric conditions, or darkness. Targets are considered concealed if they cannot be viewed by an
attacker. If fully concealed, a target cannot be attacked.
Individuals who attack from cover become visible and may themselves be attacked; because they retain partial
cover they are eligible for a defending DM of –4. Individuals who attack from concealment provide reason to believe
they are present, and may be attacked; because they remain partially concealed, they are allowed a defending DM of –
1.
from DonM's errata, we just used to do +3 and +x for evading/snapshot (sort of from snapshot). It makes it a lot harder to hit someone.
madmike
SOC-12
Well said, plus I enjoy the conversation of this community. Another thread asked where is your Traveller Shanghai (Shangri-La), well right here
Oh yes, After a twenty year absence, I have returned to the best RPG around.
Having a blast organising an adventure for our aging group of gamers, looking for a change from RQ and T&T.
Lots of house rules to digest, new star ships to design and plenty of perilous situations to throw at the group. All good!
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
So it appears that I haven't posted in this thread, so I guess I'll speak up.
What do you HATE about CT? Not a &^%$ thing.
OK, one thing... that GDW made the mistake of making other versions, instead of just cleaning up CT.
And no, MT is NOT a "cleaned up CT"!
What do you HATE about CT? Not a &^%$ thing.
OK, one thing... that GDW made the mistake of making other versions, instead of just cleaning up CT.
And no, MT is NOT a "cleaned up CT"!
saundby
SOC-14 1K
I disliked the power creep in bk 4 and 5 when they came out. I played with nothing more than LBB1-3 for over 20 years because of that and a group of munchkins who abused the new books. I hate that I missed out on so much good stuff in its day because of that break.
I'm overjoyed that I own pretty much the whole shebang today, and am here to enjoy it.
I'm overjoyed that I own pretty much the whole shebang today, and am here to enjoy it.
Hate? Nothing.
'Course, I only had the first 6 books and two Supplements (Forms & Animals) - I might have found things to hate in the OTU books...
Things I do/desired differently:
'Course, I only had the first 6 books and two Supplements (Forms & Animals) - I might have found things to hate in the OTU books...
Things I do/desired differently:
Removed Standing from Social stat.
No Teleportation.
No 'swords in space' as a default.
3D (layered) jump maps.
Gravitic based shields standard.
Space travel accounting for orbits.
System centric vs. main world.
All design tables should be formulas.
More 'fleshed out' injury system.
I've little to do with the OTU, but related to such:No Teleportation.
No 'swords in space' as a default.
3D (layered) jump maps.
Gravitic based shields standard.
Space travel accounting for orbits.
System centric vs. main world.
All design tables should be formulas.
More 'fleshed out' injury system.
No detailed OTU stuffs in the Books (1-8).
At most, trivial resemblance of aliens to pets.
A setting not a 'universe'.
No earth.
At most, trivial resemblance of aliens to pets.
A setting not a 'universe'.
No earth.
Last edited:
Blasphemy...... Infidel one cannot hate the sacred text....
o:
o:
Just for you MT haters, were it not for MT, I'd have left Traveller forever... 2300 showed me a much better ruleset, and got me started looking for a perfect ruleset. MT was, for me at the time, an improvement over 2300, and was bonus for being in the same setting as CT.
MGT is my second choice... but it's too far from CT and MT for me.
MGT is my second choice... but it's too far from CT and MT for me.
Infidel......Stone him
.... Or when I lived in anchorage ... We would ice our snowballs...Similar threads
