One thing I can say about Classic Traveller, its combat stats are very compact. Its quick and easy to generate foes for your PCs. Generating D20 characters is a little more involved. A product like 1001 characters for D20 would be nice. Also a product like Animal Encounters Supplement 2 for D20 would also be nice. The animals in that supplement are sorted by world type and the physical descriptions are left vague. It can serve as a kind of Traveller Monster Manual. By the way I've always wondered why Traveller is spelled with 2 'l's. My spell checker always underlines it and presents me with the proper spelling of that word.
What was wrong with CT?
- Thread starter manley_t
- Start date
Gallowglass
SOC-12
But T20's primary milieu is Gateway 1000 (doesn't advance the timeline) and most of what's been seen so far (e.g. The Linkworlds Cluster) is hardly T20 exclusive. QLI have repeatedly stated that whilst T20 is (naturally) the baseline rule system for their material, they will strive for CT compatibility. And the 1248 book has been described as virtually systemless. I still see nothing in this situation that makes it a bad thing to talk about or want T5, nor that requires me to use T20 if it doesn't suit me. Which on alance I find it doesn't. YMMV.
I've been running a T20 campaign...excited to be running a Traveller game once again.
But I've been waxing nostalgic for the CT days where the 3 books were core and a handful of others made up the 'extras'.
I've been thinking (I prefer it during my commute instead of music on some days) about how much fun I had with CT. And I've been asking myself, "how many rules do you really need"?
While I look back fondly at CT I know that the rules in those 3 LBB wouldn't survive today....wouldn't stand a chance actually. But, at their core, they are good and, I have to agree, there was nothing 'wrong' with them and, I believe, still isn't. They could use with some growing up...but their core shouldn't be changed, IMO.
Maybe the concept of T5 is not to re-make traveller to fit the marketing fad of the gaming industry or the perceived desires of new 13 year old role-players getting out of Pokemon (now it's Yugio...) and into RPGs but to take the 'introduction' that CT was and expand into the real rule-set that I think all of us Die-Hards want and have spent time house-ruling together.
I think that character generation should be both quick and easy (ala book 1) and detailed and flexible (ala book 4/5/6 maybe with some D20 stuff tossed in). GM's can generate hordes of NPC's while Players can savor choices and history in their character creation.
I think combat, at it's heart, is a task -- and rules should be written accordingly. Personally, I dislike all the combat systems that have been written so far. CT is the closest, and even that I house ruled a bit.
Combat should be the same format for individual, vehicle or spacecraft...only the scales change.
Vechicle and ship design rules should be simple enough for normal geek-folk to do but still detailed enough for gear-heads to play with.
comments?
BTW -- I love Andy's stuff and think his 1 page rules are great.
But I've been waxing nostalgic for the CT days where the 3 books were core and a handful of others made up the 'extras'.
I've been thinking (I prefer it during my commute instead of music on some days) about how much fun I had with CT. And I've been asking myself, "how many rules do you really need"?
While I look back fondly at CT I know that the rules in those 3 LBB wouldn't survive today....wouldn't stand a chance actually. But, at their core, they are good and, I have to agree, there was nothing 'wrong' with them and, I believe, still isn't. They could use with some growing up...but their core shouldn't be changed, IMO.
Maybe the concept of T5 is not to re-make traveller to fit the marketing fad of the gaming industry or the perceived desires of new 13 year old role-players getting out of Pokemon (now it's Yugio...) and into RPGs but to take the 'introduction' that CT was and expand into the real rule-set that I think all of us Die-Hards want and have spent time house-ruling together.
I think that character generation should be both quick and easy (ala book 1) and detailed and flexible (ala book 4/5/6 maybe with some D20 stuff tossed in). GM's can generate hordes of NPC's while Players can savor choices and history in their character creation.
I think combat, at it's heart, is a task -- and rules should be written accordingly. Personally, I dislike all the combat systems that have been written so far. CT is the closest, and even that I house ruled a bit.
Combat should be the same format for individual, vehicle or spacecraft...only the scales change.
Vechicle and ship design rules should be simple enough for normal geek-folk to do but still detailed enough for gear-heads to play with.
comments?
BTW -- I love Andy's stuff and think his 1 page rules are great.
T20 and Quicklink are dedicated to advancing the Timeline with the new TNE sourcebook that is due out sometime.
Plus, the Milieu 1000, is a rich one, and by all accounts T20 will be dedicated to deepening our knowledge, particularly of the Gateway sector. This way get us out of the ghetto of the Marches and Rim toward truly alien space - the K'kree. Other than Gateway, the K'Kree module, and the few smattered reference in JTAS, it is open space for lots of expansion. Furthermore, they have committed themselves to not talking about the big events of 1000 (ie the Rim War) and gear themselves into a more adventure driven milieu --that is if I have read MJD and Hunter's comments correctly.
Plus, the Milieu 1000, is a rich one, and by all accounts T20 will be dedicated to deepening our knowledge, particularly of the Gateway sector. This way get us out of the ghetto of the Marches and Rim toward truly alien space - the K'kree. Other than Gateway, the K'Kree module, and the few smattered reference in JTAS, it is open space for lots of expansion. Furthermore, they have committed themselves to not talking about the big events of 1000 (ie the Rim War) and gear themselves into a more adventure driven milieu --that is if I have read MJD and Hunter's comments correctly.
CT developed and expanded over ten years and became quite rich, but there was still ease at the core. I'm in agreement about your refrain that both easy and detailed systems of chargen and tech should be included from the start. A unified task/combat system sounds lovely, but it still needs to be very straight forward. 2d6 is still my preference, but that's just the traditionalist in me. d66 is an interesting twist on that theme. Is there a good task system out there that stick with two six-sided dice?
Although I've never actually seen how it works in play, the BITS task system seems serviceable.
www.bits.org.uk in their archive section
www.bits.org.uk in their archive section
CT developed and expanded over ten years and became quite rich, but there was still ease at the core. I'm in agreement about your refrain that both easy and detailed systems of chargen and tech should be included from the start. A unified task/combat system sounds lovely, but it still needs to be very straight forward. 2d6 is still my preference, but that's just the traditionalist in me. d66 is an interesting twist on that theme. Is there a good task system out there that stick with two six-sided dice? </font>[/QUOTE]The Silhouette (Dream Pod 9)uses 2d6 for untrained skills though while it has threshold numbers the dice aren't added together across the board. The highest number is used and any additioanl sixes add 1.
If you are trained in a skill it's more of a dice pool system. FWIW, dice pool systems aren't all that bad, and can be quite fast. Storyteller revised or the version used in Adventure, etc. doesn't punish highly skilled characters like the older versions did.
DP9 is releasing a generic Silhouette book any time now.
core faq link
I'll get the new Jovian Chronicles 2nd edtion and the core rules when they come out. (JC suffered from info being spread out over too many books IMO hopefully this will correct matters)
Most newer games use 3d6, 1d10, 3d10, or a dice pool of d6s or d10s. With the availability of differnt types of dice there's really no reason to stick with 2d6 for a new game. Heck even the Buffy (an example of a game marketed to non-gamers) game is d10+modifiers and the new Marvel game won't use dice at all.
Oh and my main grips with CT (from what I remember):
No relationship of characteristics with the task/skill system.
Completely random chargen often resulting in too few skills.
Focus on military type characters (somewhat fixed in the later supplements)
Too many dang rules spread throughout a lot of books.
No design rules for vehicles or equipment.
Not enough descriptive artwork, even in the Travller Book edition. (ok here's a picture of a weapon, what weapon is it?)
No option for point based chargen, at least for characteristics (heck even d20 has this now).
Too many wargame type matrixes/tables ala WRG miniature rules. (+1, -2, +2, -3, +2 ok no change; @#@!@%#$&)
No option for cinematic action ala Buffy's Drama Points. Not essential but makes for some fine heroics.
Still, I think it's a model for short character listings and simplicity. I also like BRP, BESM, and Gurps Lite for rules-lite system (each have free internet versions).
Casey
There are two schools here, the "Revised and Updated CT" and the "New, Modern System with a Few Flavors of Traveller". The two are at odds in their foundation, so lets not try to mix them. File out by ranks into your school and lets develop two competing systems. Diversity is good!Originally posted by Casey:
No relationship of characteristics with the task/skill system.
Given. An evolving system that hadn't grown up yet in 1987.
Completely random chargen often resulting in too few skills.
The best thing about CT chargen is the randomness.
Focus on military type characters (somewhat fixed in the later supplements)
I have collected over sixty careers that were developed for CT. By 1983 there was plenty of choice.
No design rules for vehicles or equipment.
Too many dang rules spread throughout a lot of books.
Again, there were many, just not collected together, which would be a principle goal of a revision/update.
Not enough descriptive artwork, even in the Travller Book edition. (ok here's a picture of a weapon, what weapon is it?)
Matter of taste, I supposed. I enjoyed the flavor each GM brough to their TU with their imaginitaive descriptions or personal sketches.
No option for point based chargen, at least for characteristics (heck even d20 has this now).
....
Too many wargame type matrixes/tables ala WRG miniature rules. (+1, -2, +2, -3, +2 ok no change; @#@!@%#$&)
Falls under the task system revision
No option for cinematic action ala Buffy's Drama Points.
And let's keep it that way
Gallowglass
SOC-12
What he said!Originally posted by Swordy:
<SNIP>...
There are two schools here, the "Revised and Updated CT" and the "New, Modern System with a Few Flavors of Traveller". The two are at odds in their foundation, so lets not try to mix them. File out by ranks into your school and lets develop two competing systems. Diversity is good![/QB]
I used to have the same complaint in past. I even complained about the way MT introduced characteristics bonuses as they were quite small. The fact is, after a seven years as professor, I am sure that, although there is a correlation between characteristics and skills, they are much more complex than usually portraited in roleplaying games and that it is much smaller than most people assume. As this, I am now very confortable with the way MT handles it.
Few people, if any, have complete control of their careers. You should understand that character generation in Traveller is a game in itself. And a fun one! Also, MT and T4 granted a few skills during the pre-career phase.
There are a lot of supplements for CT taking care of it. MT and T4 are also good in this aspect in their basic books.
Corrected in MT and T4.
Get Striker.
Not a problem with me. The Traveller book is well enough illustrated for me. The are even more illustrations in the T4 book, did you liked it in this aspect?
A few years ago I got The Dying Earth. This game allows point based or rolled chargen, although it is much more advantagous to roll your characteristics as characters became stronger, although perhaps not exactly what you wanted. This was the moment that I finally got, after 20 years roleplaying, that games are about risk, and we should risk. I really disdain point based chargen right now. As such, you should not see it as an anachronism but as a different point of view. I have no problems with an optional point based chargen, especially if it is available in the net to not waste my precious rulebook pages.
I agree. They are really my issue against CT.
Thanks God no. I allways visioned Traveller as a game of normal people in difficult situations. Cinematic options are better handled by other games, leave it this way.
The origin of the Drama Point is from MegaTraveller isn't? If I remember a character can improve a skill by getting some king of action point in a particular area - a skill can be increase literally in the middle of an action by attempting something bold!
Don't have the books in front of me but thats how i remember playing it.
Don't have the books in front of me but thats how i remember playing it.
My "house Traveller" notebook includes both a deterministic point-based chargen system (ripped off the 'net, originally created by Donald McKinney for HIWG) and a 'drama points' system (basically an expansion of the brownie points mechanic from MT chargen) as optional rules, and I think T^5 should do the same. Even though I don't philosophically approve of or actually use either mechanic (they are both pretty fundamentally opposed to MY conception of Traveller), I also recognize that most 'new' gamers expect their games to include rules like this, and would see any game that didn't as either incomplete or defective.
Nothing at all wrong with CT, it's quite playable as is. The only thing it really needs is a more flexible task system. MT sought to correct this, but I personally found that combat became a real chore. Am I the only one here that likes T4? I've been using the KBv2.0 task system with T4 and it seems to correct all the probs with T4's system (half dice, attributes more important than skills).
Task system? CT always had it. Whacha wanna do? Roll 2D6 and get a 10. Oh, you have Mechanical 2? Add 2 to your roll. I noticed as Ron did that in the Real World characteristics have erratic and frequently insignificant effects compared to training. I think MT makes characteristics too significant and marginalizes stats between the "+"s. Besides, why not call the difficulty "10+" instead of "Difficult" and making us look it up?
The Combat Matrixes? Hated them. Subtracting damage from characteristics? Difficult to keep track of. The Azhanti High Lightning/Striker fixed that.
Heavy weapons and vehicle design rules? Striker rules again (deliberate pun).
I think a better integration of Striker with the LBB (especially book 4) would be a better product than MT, TNE, or T4.
The Combat Matrixes? Hated them. Subtracting damage from characteristics? Difficult to keep track of. The Azhanti High Lightning/Striker fixed that.
Heavy weapons and vehicle design rules? Striker rules again (deliberate pun).
I think a better integration of Striker with the LBB (especially book 4) would be a better product than MT, TNE, or T4.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Testify, Lord Bob! Testify!!!
christopher.boote
SOC-12
Contact me at games@compute-ability.demon.co.uk ...
Similar threads
