What was wrong with CT?

[Swankiller]

Well... as was said some time back, there was nothing wrong with CT as a basic system, but the one thing it really lacked was the capacity to customise your characters. This was actually fairly well dealt with by the Traveller 2300 system when they allowed one to change careers before beginning playing... this was a neat little addition.

Also, combat was never really very well done. Oh gun combat was okay, but ship to ship combat... maybe I missed something, but using the high guard rules, the number of times my free trader lost its spinal mount weapon was rather remarkable...

 

[WarriorKnight]

Originally posted by Swankiller:
Well... as was said some time back, there was nothing wrong with CT as a basic system, but the one thing it really lacked was the capacity to customise your characters. This was actually fairly well dealt with by the Traveller 2300 system when they allowed one to change careers before beginning playing... this was a neat little addition.
Actually in CT there was a rule that allowed characters to change careers but you had a -2 on the enlisted roll for the next career.
[/QB]
Also, combat was never really very well done. Oh gun combat was okay, but ship to ship combat... maybe I missed something, but using the high guard rules, the number of times my free trader lost its spinal mount weapon was rather remarkable... [/QB]

How big was your Free Trader? A Free Trader could almost fit inside of a Spinal Mount.

 

[Aquinas]

I wannna put my two-pennorth in here...

I love CT. Yes it has its faults (God knows) but it was open ended enough that the could be worked round.

I came from a wargames background so the +this -that *the number you first thought of... didn't bother me.

I liked the dammage rules tho we allways applied all the dammage to one stat rather than 1D per stat.

MT, T:NE and T4 all over complicated the system and T20 has dummed it down. If you have a level based system you start at level 1; if you play Traveller you start experienced. Never mind if I use this shoehorn and some butter I'll fit the two together (very last Tango in Paris ).

I'd like to see a T5 that uses the Books 1-8 base with tweaks based on experience of the last twenty some years.

The base is strong it can be built upon...

Vidmar

PS Sixty careers....???? For CT???

Could you list 'em? With anotated sources as well

 

[grendelttroll]

Originally posted by Vice-Admiral Vidmar Kulkinski:
I wannna put my two-pennorth in here...
<S N I P >

MT, T:NE and T4 all over complicated the system and T20 has dummed it down. If you have a level based system you start at level 1; if you play Traveller you start experienced. Never mind if I use this shoehorn and some butter I'll fit the two together (very last Tango in Paris ).

In T20, you don't have to start at level 1. You go through a career path similar to other Traveller games, count your XP that you accumilated during you path, and assign your caracter level. Since there isn't a "hit point" system, there is nothing really unbalancing mixing higher level characters with lower level ones. Higher levels just means a more skilled character - just like previous Traveller editions.

As a vetran of both CT and the d20 system, I was very impressed with what I saw when I picked up the book from QLI. I think they pretty much did the best you can do translating Traveller to the d20 system. I read through the book, and IMOHO, it took me back to 1982 - looking at the LBB's for the first time. I found a Traveller rulesystem that didn't need prior experience in Traveller to use - unlike MT and T:TNE.

I am not implying that T20 is Gawd<tm>'s gift to RPG's, but it has the best chance of any version so far of getting new blood into the game, and THAT's what T5 must do to survive. RPG companies need new customers constantly. You cannot stay in business tayloring exclusively to the old school.

Take my opinion, or tell me I'm full of it. I can only say what I feel. I don't know what T5 will have inside of it, but it better be enough to get new players or it will be as dead as T4.

 

[manley_t]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I think a better integration of Striker with the LBB (especially book 4) would be a better product than MT, TNE, or T4.

YES!!!

With you 153.6% on that one!

 

[Elliot]

If you have old TD and MTJ's (esp MTJ4) I think its worth reading the frequent interviews on Joe Fugate and MWM on the development of Traveller into MT - all very illuminating!

By the way what happened to Joe Fugate et al?

 

[Gaming Glen]

My main problems with CT:

Number 1 with a bullet: 2d6 does not provide a large enough range of numbers, both for statistics, especially for aliens and creatures, and die roll results.

Character advancement is slower than a glacier.

Lack of any rules or skill system for basic actions. How far can I jump and how difficult is it? What's my chance of spotting an ambush?

Realistic computers. The whole technology tree needs to be greatly expanded.


Other issues have been lessened with additional CT products, but they are there (mostly nitpicks that I can't recall at the moment).

I have many fond memories of CT, none involve role-playing; but instead HG + TCS ship building and world generation (which was vastly improved with the Book 6 type of generation).

All you old fogies, and myself, have CT already. A new CT will die just like TNE and T4. But then, almost any new Traveller will probably die. The only Traveller being played around here is T20 that I forced upon my D&D group. I lost three players doing that.


I don't want another CT, unless that refers to Cultured Traveller.
What I mean about that is: don't just give us new fangled weapons, vehicles, and a short list of futuristic equipment, but also describe living in said future environments among aliens, space travel, robots/biotech, and psionics. Include a couple of chapters for such, using the OTU for most of the examples but also use alternate settings to show how it can be done otherwise (get other people to write these). Since Traveller has no commercial tie-in to a science fiction setting it has to create it's own in the first book, later books that could expand upon settings will not be made since the first book did not sell well enough.

Fantasy worlds are easy to create, anyone can fall back upon our own medieval period, especially with all the support material, movies, and live recreation events, but science fiction takes a larger imagination (something I'm sorely lacking) to create the settings, especially since there can be multiple ones for the multiple planets. One option: at the end of a chapter on a set of rules (i.e., equipment), have a write up on how things in the chapter affect people. Don't just provide the "nuts and bolts", but add a little oil to get it moving.


Glen

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Swankiller:
Well... as was said some time back, there was nothing wrong with CT as a basic system, but the one thing it really lacked was the capacity to customise your characters. This was actually fairly well dealt with by the Traveller 2300 system when they allowed one to change careers before beginning playing... this was a neat little addition.

I forgot this. As a house rule you were able to try to enlist in another career if you were discharged (-1 for every term you have served, +1 if you have appropriate skills). We have used that for so long I forgot it wasn't canon.

Also, combat was never really very well done. Oh gun combat was okay, but ship to ship combat... maybe I missed something, but using the high guard rules, the number of times my free trader lost its spinal mount weapon was rather remarkable...

Funny, I had the opposite impression. I think the High Guard rules say something like, "If your ship doesn't have an entry, or it is already destroyed, go to the next one."
OTOH, juggling combat matrixes and subtracting dice of damage from different characteristcs drove me crazy.
-------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
My main problems with CT:

Number 1 with a bullet: 2d6 does not provide a large enough range of numbers, both for statistics, especially for aliens and creatures, and die roll results.

Huh? 2-15 ain't enough?

Character advancement is slower than a glacier.

Just like real life. If you want to improve a skill, take a course.

Lack of any rules or skill system for basic actions. How far can I jump and how difficult is it? What's my chance of spotting an ambush?

Granted.

Realistic computers. The whole technology tree needs to be greatly expanded.

Rip them out out and write a whole new section.

The only Traveller being played around here is T20 that I forced upon my D&D group. I lost three players doing that.

De'il tak ye for playing D&D in the first place.

Fantasy worlds are easy to create,

Huh?

anyone can fall back upon our own medieval period, especially with all the support material, movies, and live recreation events,

Oh, you mean bad fantasy settings.

but science fiction takes a larger imagination (something I'm sorely lacking) to create the settings, especially since there can be multiple ones for the multiple planets.

I see your point. But there are thousands of science fiction stories that are just as good as the fantasy source material. Turn off the TV and computer and get a subscription to Analog.

 

[Gaming Glen]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
My main problems with CT:

Number 1 with a bullet: 2d6 does not provide a large enough range of numbers, both for statistics, especially for aliens and creatures, and die roll results.

Huh? 2-15 ain't enough?

Not by a long shot. What's the CT strength of an elephant?

Character advancement is slower than a glacier.

Just like real life. If you want to improve a skill, take a course.

But the rules did not have such. And not all skills have to be learned in school. Let's see, I (a character) have been in quite a few firefights with my pistol over two years yet I still only have Pistol-1? Also, it does not take 4 years to gain +1 skill to one skill (as original CT character creation had).

Lack of any rules or skill system for basic actions. How far can I jump and how difficult is it? What's my chance of spotting an ambush?

Granted.

Realistic computers. The whole technology tree needs to be greatly expanded.

Rip them out out and write a whole new section.

I bought a set of rules NOT to rewrite whole sections in their entirety. I'll go find another set of rules instead.


Not every Traveller player has a glowing fondness of CT.


Glen

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
Not by a long shot. What's the CT strength of an elephant?

Granted. But most game systems don't try either, and the few that do try (like FUDGE) fail miserably.

But the rules did not have such. And not all skills have to be learned in school. Let's see, I (a character) have been in quite a few firefights with my pistol over two years yet I still only have Pistol-1? Also, it does not take 4 years to gain +1 skill to one skill (as original CT character creation had).

CT is not just the first three books. Book 4 add the Instructor skill which allows you to teach (or learn) a skill to a lower-level in six-weeks training. And you don't improve your skill with a pistol in gunfights. Veterans tell me it improves only after expending thousands of rounds in practice.

I bought a set of rules NOT to rewrite whole sections in their entirety. I'll go find another set of rules instead.

No edition of Traveller has had satisfactory computer rules. I was not suggesting that you should do it, but that CT (and MT, TNE and T4)computers suck and need to be re-written. They have been obviously broken for twenty years.

Not every Traveller player has a glowing fondness of CT.

CT wasn't perfect, but subsequent versions did not fix the flaws while changing up the parts that worked just fine but weren't fashionable.

 

[Swordy]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
No edition of Traveller has had satisfactory computer rules. I was not suggesting that you should do it, but that CT (and MT, TNE and T4)computers suck and need to be re-written. They have been obviously broken for twenty years.

The computer rules in CT were for shipboard computers only and were realistic. I have compared the tonnage and costs with the electronics found aboard modern naval vessels and nuke power plants, both of which I have first hand experience. The fact that personal and business computers were neglected in CT is not surprising since there was not much to go on in 1977

 

[WendellM]

I started with Classic Traveller when it was the only Traveller there was. I've since bought MT, TNE, and T4, and it may just be nostalgia, but I really don't like them nearly as much as CT.

CT did have a few problems. Mine are weapon damage being constant (the same damage dice when penetrating battle dress as when going through no armor at all, though AHL & Striker did address this), starship combat (sand and missiles aren't described adequately in Book 2, High Guard's combat is only good for large fleet actions, and neither Mayday nor Special Supplement 3 really agree with Book 2 or each other), and later systems disregarding earlier ones (Striker is particularly bad in this, re: weapon damage and equipment prices).

I'd love a cleaned-up, integrated, updated, and rearranged (all chargen rules in one place instead of across multiple books for example) version of CT as T5. MT started to do this, but the multiple typos/errors and change of setting/feel (it's more like MechWarrior than Traveller) hurt it. Other than these problems, though, MT had the right approach.

The original question was "Why not have T5 be the final version; the version that returns to it's roots with decades of experience under it's belt to create the BEST CT that could be done." I'd love this. For now, I'm quite happy buying the reprints, and if that's as far as CT goes, I'd be satisfied (I can take it from there). But an improved set that still feels like "real" Traveller (the later versions didn't, to the point of my passing completely on GT and T20 which are mere expansions for other rule sets) would be quite welcome as a return to the "Golden Age of the Third Imperium" (as the latest reprints are now calling it). I think that there are still plenty of stories to be told there.

 

[ctskerry]

Originally posted by WendellM:
there). But an improved set that still feels like "real" Traveller (the later versions didn't, to the point of my passing completely on GT and T20 which are mere expansions for other rule sets) would be quite welcome as a return to the "Golden Age of the Third Imperium" (as the latest reprints are now calling it). I think that there are still plenty of stories to be told there.

Hmm, I think T20 feels like "real" Traveller, I didn't think it would at first, but as I get further into it I find I like it more and more which is kinda odd as I hate D&D.

Kerry

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Swordy:
The computer rules in CT were for shipboard computers only and were realistic. I have compared the tonnage and costs with the electronics found aboard modern naval vessels and nuke power plants, both of which I have first hand experience. The fact that personal and business computers were neglected in CT is not surprising since there was not much to go on in 1977

Naval and nuclear power-plant electronic suites are largely use twenty-thirty year old technology so I would expect them to be equivalent. The Book-2 computer rules set specific tasks, programs, that different sized computers can accomplish. These rules are quite reasonable up to early TL-7, but complete garbage beyond that.

It is sometimes suggested that the computers are controlling more systems (LSS, power plant operation, etc) which explains their grotesque size. Balderdash!
TL 5 an 6 computers are about the right size to run exactly the programs listed, yet they can be used as ship's computers. Also, those other systems do not fail, much less fail catastrophically, if the computer is damaged or destroyed.

 

[womble]

Gaming Glen: Number 1 with a bullet: 2d6 does not provide a large enough range of numbers, both for statistics, especially for aliens and creatures, and die roll results.

Uncle Bob: Huh? 2-15 ain't enough?

GG: Not by a long shot. What's the CT strength of an elephant?

UncaB: Granted. But most game systems don't try either, and the few that do try (like FUDGE) fail miserably.

?? Nearly every game system I've ever played, from Runequest to Storyteller to Hero to WFRP has had "animal magnitude" stats. Okay in some of them, humans (or other PC races) could approach elephantine strength, but that just means they were broken to a greater or lesser extent. At least the system was included. Single digit hex-numbered stats were a cute idea, but apply a psychological cap that should be done away with.

Other things that are wrong with CT:
</font>

• The thing my gaming buddies who never played CT remember most vividly was the "Death in character generation" nonsense. That would have to go.</font>
• While it's fun on one level to have entirely random character generation, these days people are used to being able to build a set of stats that supports and enables a character concept. Wooly recollection suggests that the chances of someone who started out wanting to be an IMC combat medic would have to be seriously lucky to end up with stats that allowed them to effectively play that concept.</font>
• The lack of basic mechanics for "spot hidden" and the like is a weakness, though I can't remember when I last calculated how far a character could jump, as a player or ref in any system.</font>
• The concept of +ve "to hit" modifiers for lesser armour values stinks. "no armour" should be a zero and anything that affects the impact should be a negative. If it's that easy to hurt an unarmoured target, it should be on the range modifier. But that'd make the range modifier silly for some weapons.</font>
• While I, personally, enjoy the idea of playing someone at the peak of their abilities, with progression being a very secondary part of the game , most players of my acquaintance are very keen for their characters' skills and stats to develop. And in any case, very few systems (even points-based ones) allow a fully competent character to be played at game start, when they are run through as written. Maybe if the character generation system produced exceptional individuals (rather than apparently run-of-the-mill grunts) the clamour for a development system would decrease.</font>
• The culture of the milieu needs to be at the forefront of the system. How it's governed should not have to be gleaned from scattered oblique references; the reasons for non-homogenous TL should be elucidated. T20 is a worthy successor to CT in this regard.</font>
• Advances in Real World science since the inception of the OTU that have spawned concepts such as Cyber and bioware in other fiction forms should be addressed explicitly. Along with the room sized calculators... </font>

In the end, for my money, "CT" isn't the "Little Black Books", it's "The Third Imperium in its 1100th or so year: vast and tied together by 4-parsecs-a-week comms, with Ancients and Nobles and Scouts and Marines and Free Traders and Zhodani". T20 is the nearest to capturing that feel. The Rebellion was too turbulent, the New Era was too broken up (and too high tech) and Milieu 0 was too empty-feeling for my taste. It's not about the system, it's the milieu. The Traveller system is very generic once you get out of character generation. Though the UPP is a nice milieu-touch.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by womble:
While it's fun on one level to have entirely random character generation, these days people are used to being able to build a set of stats that supports and enables a character concept. Wooly recollection suggests that the chances of someone who started out wanting to be an IMC combat medic would have to be seriously lucky to end up with stats that allowed them to effectively play that concept.

OTOH, "building a set of stats" often leads to Munchkinism. Random characters demand versatility and imagination to play effectively.

The concept of +ve "to hit" modifiers for lesser armour values stinks.

Fortunately Azhanti High Lightning/Striker combat counts as CT.

... most players of my acquaintance are very keen for their characters' skills and stats to develop. And in any case, very few systems (even points-based ones) allow a fully competent character to be played at game start, when they are run through as written...

Combined with your earlier comments, it appears that your players miss the point: character creation is a solo game in itself. Otherwise players tend to create a dreary series of similar characters minimaxed for a particular style of play. That strikes me a not particularly fun as a gamer or challenging as a role-player.

The culture of the milieu needs to be at the forefront of the system. How it's governed should not have to be gleaned from scattered oblique references; the reasons for non-homogenous TL should be elucidated.
...
In the end, for my money, "CT" isn't the "Little Black Books", it's "The Third Imperium in its 1100th or so year:


I disagree intensly. We playedfor several years before we had a clear view of the 3rd Imperium, which I frankly didn't like very well. The LBB allowed you to play in a variety of melieu. I have never seen an out-of-the-box campaign world that didn't need serious tweeking to suit me (except maybe the alternate Europe of Ars Magica.) There should be a clear and coherent melieu offered as a seperate book for those who want it, and flexible basic rules for those who don't.

 

[Dynamo]

The Strength of an elephant in classic Traveller

Probably somewhere around J or K in hex.

Why would yo need to roll that in character creation?

As far as range goes a 2-12 limit is pretty wide and varied when you compare it to a general population. If you must go over that level,... do it its not like Hex stops at E. I have a feeling you really wouldn't like Dream Pod 9's Sillhouette system (which has a zero based system but pretty much keeps it between the -4 and +4 range for stats.)

 

[kafka47]

Granted we can all admit the old CT was a dated system and generated numerous spin-offs systems. But, its simplicity was the escalator effect which was ahead of its time.

So don't argue that CT is the game of the 21st century but appreciate what were your other choices in 1977?

 

[Vargas]

I might suggest that given the game systems out there today, CT might still be a viable choice.

 

[womble]

Womble: ...these days people are used to being able to build a set of stats that supports and enables a character concept...
UncaB: OTOH, "building a set of stats" often leads to Munchkinism. Random characters demand versatility and imagination to play effectively.
Womble: Prevalence of "Munchkinism" depends on the player group. Its impact depends on the player group and the ref's abilities to accommodate or ameliorate it. Random characters can be frustrating and unsatisfying to play. Golden Heroes had a random character generation system. It sucked. I like to decide what I want to play, then sort out what the game stats are for it. If I wanted to play a "hotshot pilot" there's no guarantee whatsoever I'd end up with one in CT's chargen system. So I end up playing a "Washed out flight school candidate". 'Ray. Forgive my lack of enthusiasm. I play games to have fun, not be lumbered. Sure, keep the option of random character generation (everyone gets stuck for inspiration sometimes), but put a point- or semi-random-based system in as well.

UncaB: Fortunately Azhanti High Lightning/Striker combat counts as CT.
Womble: As does the "Original" system and "Snapshot". Four combat systems for one game? That's a point against the thing, surely.

Womble: ...players of my acquaintance...keen...to develop [their characters].
UncaB: Combined with your earlier comments, it appears that your players miss the point: character creation is a solo game in itself.
Otherwise players tend to create a dreary series of similar characters minimaxed for a particular style of play.
Womble: Are you condescending deliberately? Character creation in the games I play is anything but a solo game. It requires that the ref and player, at least, and usually the rest of the gaming group, cooperate to make characters that fit the style, setting and nature of the game that's going to be played. Where in the LBBs does it say "Here's a little game to play to get you started"?

If your players make cookie-cutter [insert-field-of-expertise-here]-monsters, don't tar all players with the same brush; set them different types of game. If they won't enjoy that kind of challenge, then [shrug] leave 'em where they're happy and having fun. Or get a different group.

And even having said that, the topic is "What was wrong with CT?" and I'm informing you of the perceptions of a large group of roleplayers. If they're all missing the point, just how well is it being put across (or how valid is it)? Perhaps a more general statement of what was wrong with CT is "it wasn't the game everyone wanted to play", unlike Storyteller (for mechanics) or... Hmm struggling for an example of a milieu; maybe Cyberpunk. Maybe "it wasn't the set of mechanics everyone wanted to play" is closer to it. Systems that have come since have catered better to the broad desires of the general playing community and so superceded CT.

Womble: ...culture...milieu...at the forefront..."CT" isn't the "Little Black Books", it's "The Third Imperium in its 1100th or so year:...
UncaB: I disagree intensly. We playedfor several years before we had a clear view of the 3rd Imperium, which I frankly didn't like very well. The LBB allowed you to play in a variety of melieu. I have never seen an out-of-the-box campaign world that didn't need serious tweeking to suit me (except maybe the alternate Europe of Ars Magica.) There should be a clear and coherent melieu offered as a seperate book for those who want it, and flexible basic rules for those who don't.
Womble: Then perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree, though I think the elements in my original post were prominent in books 1-3, and think we do agree that the milieu is important (I'd rate it as most important, personally, with the system used being either a help or a hindrance to the group in realising the setting and tone of the game). Perhaps we can both be happy: a simple little system for you and a deep and ready-built setting for me. You stick with CT and I'll buy the Gateway sourcebook when it arrives. Doesn't look like there's room for T5.