What was wrong with CT?

[Straybow]

Re: [Note to T20/GT philes: above requires Singing skill or feat]

Originally posted by Casey:
Which would be either an untrained skill (Cha) or a skill that defaults to ht-4. So no "skill" is really needed...unless you want to be really good at singing it.

Singing skill or feat just means you don't hurt yourself or anybody else in the attempt. Anything beyond that you have to spend chargen points or roll it. (Either you've got pipes, or you ain't.)

 

[Bill Coffin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Because most RPGers nowadays aren't interested in playing minigames to make their characters - they want a nice straightforward chargen system that gives them the characters they want to play, not the ones they're lumbered with by random die rolls? Most of the current generation of gamers just want to get that out of the way and jump right into the game with minimum hassle.

True, but the minigame chargen was something for which CT is still remembered. Granted, there are a bunch of people who hate, hate, hate it, but those of us who like it, love it. I just took a gander at the T5 playtest chargen rules, and they seem pretty sweet. One thing I liked was how you could just pick a point of development for a character so if you wanted a guy who'd been in for six terms, you just look it up and see how old he'd be and what he gets. That's pretty simple and facilitates quick play. You could have that as the basic way of doing things, and then for advanced chargen, have the random system. And I mean really going whole hog with it; having a Mercenary or High Guard or Scouts or Merchant Prince-level chargen system for every dang occupation so you can really crank things out if you want. For that, I'd probably make a separate Advanced Characters book or something, but the key would be making sure it contained no new skills, mustering out benefits or anything like that. It would be a purely optional add on so that if you were a chargen freak like myself, you throw down 20 simoleons or so and enjoy rolling up characters until Kingdom Come. But if you're a more modern player who wants streamlined chargen, you simply go with what's in the core book -- the T5 playtest rules already in existence. That's how I'd handle it. But then again, it's not my money on the line, so it's easy for me to say.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Bill Coffin:
True, but the minigame chargen was something for which CT is still remembered. Granted, there are a bunch of people who hate, hate, hate it, but those of us who like it, love it. I just took a gander at the T5 playtest chargen rules, and they seem pretty sweet. One thing I liked was how you could just pick a point of development for a character so if you wanted a guy who'd been in for six terms, you just look it up and see how old he'd be and what he gets. That's pretty simple and facilitates quick play. You could have that as the basic way of doing things, and then for advanced chargen, have the random system. And I mean really going whole hog with it; having a Mercenary or High Guard or Scouts or Merchant Prince-level chargen system for every dang occupation so you can really crank things out if you want. For that, I'd probably make a separate Advanced Characters book or something, but the key would be making sure it contained no new skills, mustering out benefits or anything like that. It would be a purely optional add on so that if you were a chargen freak like myself, you throw down 20 simoleons or so and enjoy rolling up characters until Kingdom Come. But if you're a more modern player who wants streamlined chargen, you simply go with what's in the core book -- the T5 playtest rules already in existence. That's how I'd handle it. But then again, it's not my money on the line, so it's easy for me to say.

I hear what you are saying. I really like the Character generation and Marc wants to put in Alien chargen right into the core rules. That would be very cool.

If everything he had coming out sucked then it would be much easier in a way.

What the hell do I mean?

Everything I have seen from the Starports stuff to the chargen rules to the skill descriptions all look fantastic.

Then -bam!- I hit the task system. It keeps the d6 and that is cool but I cannot get used to this roll under concept. I can even deal with the handful of dice but roll-unders? Ugh...

That goes against every role-players and dice rollers basic instinct to get the high roll.

It is the one thing that bugs the hell out of me about the rules so far.

I just want more playtest material. I am jonesing man, hard.

_

 

[Straybow]

Maybe you never played Melee. Had to roll under adj Dex to hit. Really wasn't suited to long term campaigns, more like gladiatorial combat.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Straybow:
Maybe you never played Melee. Had to roll under adj Dex to hit. Really wasn't suited to long term campaigns, more like gladiatorial combat.

There are those that did not mind this task system or its roll-under qualities but it is a bugger of a sell to my players. It irritates them to no end. Tried to go with the T5 task system as a playtest in my latest campaign but trying it out individually with a couple of people nearly caused a revolt.

Of course, this is starting to become the fable campaign because it is like a legend everyone knows about it but I can't seem to get it going. I have no proof until we actually start a couple of games that it will ever materialize.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by ACK:
There are those that did not mind this task system or its roll-under qualities but it is a bugger of a sell to my players. It irritates them to no end.

Well there are BESM / Tri-Stat conversions to roll over from roll-under so I'd suspect converting T5 to roll over wouldn't be too hard either. Granted I've not taken much of a look at the T5 task system yet.

Casey

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Casey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ACK:
There are those that did not mind this task system or its roll-under qualities but it is a bugger of a sell to my players. It irritates them to no end.

Well there are BESM / Tri-Stat conversions to roll over from roll-under so I'd suspect converting T5 to roll over wouldn't be too hard either. Granted I've not taken much of a look at the T5 task system yet.

Casey </font>[/QUOTE]I would probably use such a conversion. However, don't get me wrong, as long as its good, I will buy T5 every single chance I get.

I understand it is too much to ask of a single man project for it to be perfect exactly what one fan wants.

 

[hot dog vendor]

ct,t4 andt20 are my three favorite traveller systems each has strong points and each has low points the best solution adjust as needed and play it your way

 

[Emperor Cleon]

most RPGers nowadays aren't interested in playing minigames to make their characters - they want a nice straightforward chargen system that gives them the characters they want to play, not the ones they're lumbered with by random die rolls? Most of the current generation of gamers just want to get that out of the way and jump right into the game with minimum hassle.

That's very true. But to be fair to CT we have to remember that in the mid-70's, there was very little distinction between rpg's, wargames and "adventure games". Most early rpg's had very "gamey" systems, because that's what gamers were used to.

Personally, I like "gamey" systems, but then again I'm an old fogey.

If T5 has less "gamey" systems in it, it might appeal better to the modern rpg player. But it won't appeal to me.

 

[Malenfant]

If by 'gamey' you mean 'gamist' (ie. the goal of the player is to WIN! - to collect more stuff, kill more things, get richer etc) then D&D arguably does that quite nicely. But I don't think Traveller - even Classic Traveller - is about that.

And nowadays, people aren't all that impressed with games that look like they evolved from old-fashioned miniatures wargames (D&D3e is considerably more evolved than that). And presumably a new version of Traveller would have to appeal to new people to be worthwhile.

 

[mike wightman]

T5 is going to have its work cut out for it if it is to appeal to newbies and old timers (especially since many disagree as to which was the best version of Traveller).
I would go for a simple CT type system with a simplified DGP/MT task system and advanced rules in the referee's section to add complexity if desired. Combat could also have a simple core system with advanced options.

 

[robject]

If the playtest material is any indication, T5 is going to be very nice... even with that 'unique' task system. The expanded rules are fresh, and feel natural to Traveller. It somehow keeps the T4 base without feeling like T4 to me. Does that make sense?

Also separating from T4 is the fact that Mr. Miller is keeping the thing under tight control (currently micromanaged I suspect, though he probably won't keep it that way). I don't suppose he's done that since CT. That means T5 will have his vision, only. Warts and all, but at least it will be consistent.

As far as roll-unders goes, that was new to me in T4, but I didn't care so much. I just wanted a system that meshed with the rules, and T4 seemed to lend itself to multiple D6's. Although, I do prefer DGP's late-CT 2d6 system, but that's okay. If someone really wants to try something hopeless, they'd better be willing to grab a handful of dice to make it happen. Maybe that lends an additional psychological element to it...

I'm not worried about chargen -- again, the playtest material looks wonderful.

I am worried about starship design, because my poor brain has tried everything but TNE, and only really enjoyed the Book 2 system. The best I can hope for is something like HG with MT's variety. To please the gearheads it ought to be derived from FFS3, but it ought to screen fragile designers like me from that level of detail.

 

[aramis]

I think a 3d roll high task system could align better and allow for more varied task lables in line with what MWM seems to be leaning towards.

I would want starship design to include volume, mass and power, but NOT surface area directly, unless it ties to ship combat tables. I want armor to take volume. I want the combat system to be using the same procedures as the personal combat system, save for movement, which damnned well ought to be vector based. I want all weapons designed from a standard formulaic system.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I think a 3d roll high task system could align better and allow for more varied task lables in line with what MWM seems to be leaning towards.

I would want starship design to include volume, mass and power, but NOT surface area directly, unless it ties to ship combat tables. I want armor to take volume. I want the combat system to be using the same procedures as the personal combat system, save for movement, which damnned well ought to be vector based. I want all weapons designed from a standard formulaic system.

I liked the way the old MT method tied the combat procedures for starships and personal combat together. Even though, I always and forever will do initiative differently.

2D6+Dex attribute one task for every person in personal combat to determine rate of fire.

2D6+Agility rating+ Pilot per ship in starship combat.

That is just my way by the way. I like that because it reinforces the idea of everything as a task.

I prefer your task system.

Once things calm down in your personal life you might push it to Marc Miller but as an Optional Task System. His love for his own system dooms any other task system from taking center stage. But I like modular systems with optional rules for doing different things in a system.

Most systems do this in one way or another nowadays.

 

[Commander Drax]

I fully agree with the comments of Aramis, the vehicle design system should include, mass, as well as volume, as I personally find that touches like this tend to bring the vehicle alive for me, whilst it may not be directly important to the game mechanics, it feeds the imagination which is what good role play is all about.

 

[Jamus]

I am no fan of T20 and feel that CT was the best of the breed. what CT needs is some polishing not remodeling.

add..
a better system for character improvement

better less cumbersome rules for damage.

in my campaign I add the total of str/end/dex and that = health.. at >50% [rounded up] of health the character has suffered flesh wounds and fights as normal, at <50% the character is wounded and suffers a neg mod to all actions so if shot by a shotgun for 4d6 damage [17] he would be wounded and suffer -4 to all actions. at 0> the character will die in 1d6 rounds if medical attention is not recieved.

add more weapons, armor,gear, ect. mr miller could release a book full of such things every 6 months and it would have sold.

thats just things i would change off the top of my head and regardless I still am loyal and dedicated to CT and feel it is superior to all other versions of traveller.

T5 should basically just be a CT rerelease with no major reworking of the core system. CT works and that is why it has stood the test of time where oth traveller systems have not.

 

[robject]

Too true... CT was in the right place at the right time, and has a raw simplicity that's playable by itself, or flexible enough to accomodate all sorts of house rules (or 'modules').

CT grew into a sprawl -- maybe larger than we know -- with supplements adding skills, weapons, and rules. It's probably quite crufty; my group only played out of The Traveller Book; we didn't use Robots, High Guard, Mercenary, the Vargr book, the Aslan book, etc etc. We didn't use (or have) a staggeringly complete list of weapons or equipment or starships. And we didn't use the DGP task system much.

T5 is not a subset of CT. Mr. Miller is taking his time building a product that has learned from its ancestors. The chargen playtest material looks excellent, and the short teasers about the rest of the material sound like he's on the right track. The rules are fresh and insightful, and, to me, feel like a stronger version of CT.

I'm only worried about the starship construction rules.

 

[Michael Taylor]

"I'm only worried about the starship construction rules."

Why not just use High Guard or T20's? (which are almost the same anyway - at least the % of ship required for Jump drive,s man drives and armor is exactly the same between HG and T20.

 

[mike wightman]

As I said over on the T5 website, HG/T20 with a % based spinal mount (linked to TL and EP input) would be a good enough system, provided it covered all the TLs like MT did, i.e. don't limit ship design to TL15 max, especially when the planetary system generation rules allow TL20 to be legally derived.
You could even go all the way to TL21 like MT

 

[robject]

I agree that HG is a firm foundation, but it needs to include the accessories from MT, and of course the TL range.

And then, after that's done, a Book 2 version of it needs to be interpolated and written.