What do you HATE about CT?

[Hyphen]

Do you consider Striker as part of CT, or just Bks 1-8?

 

[aramis]

Infidel......Stone him.... Or when I lived in anchorage ... We would ice our snowballs...

Yeah, done that... but that also makes them returnable... :devil:

 

[aramis]

Do you consider Striker as part of CT, or just Bks 1-8?

I used to, and Marc Miller apparently does, as Striker is in both the Games Big Floppy and on the CT CD...

 

[Meteoric Assault]

Yeah, done that... but that also makes them returnable... :devil:

LOL.... yes and outside the house is considered an icebox for one's beer. I always seemed to have forgotten a few by the makeshift hockey rink the fire dept filled in the winter.

 

[Meteoric Assault]

Do you consider Striker as part of CT, or just Bks 1-8?

I do

 

[BytePro]

re: Striker - www.farfuture.net/Guide to Classic Traveller.pdf lists it. (warning, 16+ MB IIRC)

I seem to recall seeing an 'official' MM list of publications considered canon and not...

 

[Vargas]

I don't hate CT but there are things I'd tweak and/or avoid here and there were I to play it again. My actual goto game for sci-fi is now Thousand Suns, due in no small part to the fact that my group won't do Traveller.

 

[nats]

I don't hate CT but I cant possibly play it any more after MGT.

MGT adds loads of stuff that was missing from CT that I didn't realise was missing until I got MGT. Interesting chargen, fast ship combat, nice simple personal combat rules, radiation and suffocation rules, easy to remember and use task system, little plot footnotes - all of these immediately spring to mind.

However I do prefer certain things that CT did - deckplans, concentration on realistic not fantastical weapons, illustrations, star system creation, vector ship combat (despite the fact its unusable in a real game), animals and events, mercenary - all of these were better in CT.

 

[aramis]

star system creation

I've a workable fix for that on my website, in my Elestrial Concordat setting page.

vector ship combat (despite the fact its unusable in a real game)

It's hardly unplayable. Get mayday for its movement mechanics (it's on the CT CD and in the BFB: games; it's also available separately in PDF from DTRPG), setting 1 hex=200km (or the accurate-to-trav 216km, or the RW accurate 211km), and use Close= same hex, short 1-6 hex, Medium 6-200 hex, long 201-500 hex, VL 500-1000 hx. Use normal MGT combat mechanics for the weapons and damages.

animals and events

Can be used in MGT as is easily enough, or you can simply adjust the MGT CRB tables to add the missing lines, and extrapolate the stats. The pattern isn't inobvious to the math literate.

mercenary

Not hard to use the CT abstractions with MGT.

One could even use the much easier to use CT2E full dice only damages and more forgiving "allocate each die one at a time to a stat" damage mode.

 

[dean]

I don't hate CT but I cant possibly play it any more after MGT.

MGT adds loads of stuff that was missing from CT that I didn't realise was missing until I got MGT. Interesting chargen, fast ship combat, nice simple personal combat rules, radiation and suffocation rules, easy to remember and use task system, little plot footnotes - all of these immediately spring to mind.

However I do prefer certain things that CT did - deckplans, concentration on realistic not fantastical weapons, illustrations, star system creation, vector ship combat (despite the fact its unusable in a real game), animals and events, mercenary - all of these were better in CT.

As MGT is "standing on the shoulders of giants", it is hardly fair to make these comparisons across the 35-year gulf of time that separates these editions. CT chargen was a revolutionary idea in it's day; MGT is more like many other systems in use among the hundreds of RPGs that are now published. CT ws intended to be "crunchy", and "fast ship combat" was not a design goal, realism was. The short attention spans of the current generation of games is of more account than the game designer's choices. Like all other rules in two versions, the personal combat rules harken back to a realistic, crunchy kinda idea in CT, where once again "quick and easy" seems to rule MGT.

In fact, looking over your two lists there I see you favor SOME aspects of CT because of the crunchy details, but reject other aspects for the same reason. Personal preferences are fine, but recommending some one discard CT and use MGT because it suits your preferences better is disingenuous. Better perhaps to say "Here's why I prefer MGT to CT", and leave it at that?

Full Disclosure: Die hard CT fan. Looking at T5 as both a nod to the original designer and as a resource even if I do not adopt it as my edition of preference.

 

[Dragoner]

As a player and GM (this includes talking to other GM's and players), Mongoose has the biggest with CT second for the pool of games and gamers going on.