What was wrong with CT?

[mike wightman]

If you want skills quickly in CT join the Army. Getting six during the first term isn't unusual.

If your referee allows it, use the sabatical rule before play begins to go to university and develop a level 2 skill in something you haven't got.

Once play begins choose to follow either a skill improvement or a physical fitness course and don't forget to adjust your stats accordingly.

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
And there was always the possibility of:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Highly scientific or esoteric methods of improving...

Speaking of which, did anyone come up with any? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, even before the '70s scifi speculated on hypnotic or subliminal type learning aides.

The physical training model, especially the 8 years (!) required for permanent improvement, was obviously the brain-child of a complete couch potato who would consider any form of exercise "esoteric"...

 

[mike wightman]

Here are some other suggestions:

muscle grafts - can increase strength and/or endurance

gene therapy augmentation - improve strength, endurance, dexterity, intelligence

memory implants - similar to C.J Cherry's braintapes, increases education and skills

 

[Jeffr0]

Random comments:

Younger characters with fewer terms/skills have more of a chance for strong psi abilities.

The real reward in Classic Traveller isn't in the stat improvement. It's in the knowledge of the universe that the players/characters gain... and in the joys of vicarious law breaking.

If that kind of reward doesn't motivate you, then just switch to a point based char-gen system, and hand out point rewards after each session in the GURPS tradition. (I believe there's a JTAS article online for doing just that.) Or if you _have_ to have levels, just switch to T20.

It's not that there's anything wrong with CT in all this. In fact, it's the quirks and differences that give the game most of its charm and appeal. Traveller is its own game-- and not just another generic rpg system.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Anton Devious:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Several errors in your arguments
(1) T4 predated both GT and T20.

I did not mean to imply that T4 came before or after. I consider them all three seperate development branches rising from the failed TNE. The order they came in doesn't matter.
</font>[/QUOTE]It matters a great deal, at least for T20. We referenced it, TNE, MT, and CT a lot during the playtest. Often whilst swearing at it, but still...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(2) MT DID provide in-play skill advancement, often a many as 8 skills a year! some characters could, with luck, raise a single skill 4 levels in a term

CT had skill improvement too. But it was pathetic. A 4 year sabbatical in game? Almost every Traveller game I've been in that met on a weekly basis paced real world timing on average. That is your two week jump+world time would take about two game sessions to complete. So now you get a skill (or two on average) every game year on average which took a year of real time to get. Not that D&D is the "Best" game, but my current D20 3.5E D&D game is about a calendar year old, but the game calendar has eclipsed about 6 months and thats with built in down time. That party started at 1st level and is now 7th. They get rewarded with character growth every couple 4-6 gaming sessions on average. Sure MT made it better, but it still missed the target.
</font>[/QUOTE]CT's skill improvement was not based upon in-play mechanics; specifically, it pulled your character out of play.

MT was truly a skill improvement system; what you used got better from play. It was slow, but it did work.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(3) MT DID alter the survival rules. In MT, failed survival is short term, not dead.

While MT did change the death rule, it still meant the end of char gen. I know some refs that let you transfer to another service if you failed out, but I couldn't find it looking through the books.
</font>[/QUOTE]Only the Vargr and Solomani are allowed multiple careers. Check their AM's.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(4) T4 was grabbing for a new audience, not to solve the issues of the old one. It failed on both counts.

Marc brought T4 out at a bad time. GDW had died. Traveller had a very vertical market (a small narrow market that doesn't grow, but is very loyal). All RPG's were in decline. It wasn't long after that that TSR went to WoC. Gaming sales didn't pick back up until the D20 system came out.
</font>[/QUOTE]True, but actually quite irrelevant. T4 neither grabbed a new audience, nor did it "fix" prior editions.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(5) GT, though I hate it, is the number one GURPS sub-line of all time.

I'm actually mentioned in that book! *See below.

(6) T20, though my name be in it, is not our last best hope. D20 backlash is on the rise.

Please tell us more.
</font>[/QUOTE]D20 was intended to crete a Bubble and burst, to shake out the market. It's now beginning to do so. The massive deluge of crappy d20 products was an intended consequence. (WOTC Website, 1998)

It's working. D20 products are going for fire sale prices, and still not moving. Certain key lines are thriving; but overall, the D20 market isn't great.

Further, there is much complaint about T20 not using the D20 Modern SRD; wasn't an option at the time, but the purchasers don't give a rats.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(7) If you want andorians, put them somewhere. But don't expect Marc, Hunter, or Loren to even do such a thing;

I don't want Andorians per sea. If I did, I'd play Star Trek. The point I'm making is that more details about the OTU is what the vertical market would buy. I'm not all that interested in another rule set. I have 5 of them. They all tell me about Merchant Jaminson. I know the Beowulf is in trouble.
</font>[/QUOTE]Quite honestly, the more details, the less happy my fellow GM's in Anchorage have been. GT backlash is about "Wrong Detail" which contradicts what they interpolated from CT, MT, TNE, and/or T4

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(9) Until MT, the OTU was not in the core rules. The OTU was optional.

Which is one of the things that made CT great. One of my favorite Traveller games didn't take place in the OTU. The guy generated his on subsector and we played with in that 8x10 parsec space.

I guess I should introduce myself before making grand posts.

See the bottom of Page 4 of GT? There is a reference to subscribing to the Traveller Mailing list and contacting rwm@mpgn.com to join. Thats me, the infamous Rob Miracle, former list mom of the TML while it was at MPG-Net/Interactive Magic/iEntertainment days. I was a Programmer at Tantalus/MPG-net back in the day when we held the electronic rights to the game. Those were some grand days. I'm long gone from there and my Traveller gaming is limited to some light PBEM work. (Hey Chuck!)
</font>[/QUOTE]Yup, I recall who you are. Doesn't make you immune to logical error... And you could have been LKW, and still gotten the same response. I reply to content, not poster.

Rob

T20 can be a flotation device, but if traveller is to survive, T20 will need either a major overhaul, or TX will need to come out. I doubt MWM will write something to appeal to both Traveller fans and the general audience.

To be honest, GT is more likely the best hope; bigger player base, better distribution channels, and more readable details (albeit, for many, less playable).

GT is almost purely a background; GURPS needed just that. T20 is in competition with several space based D20 games, including MP's Babylon 5.

I can't comment on the non-d20 Serenity, but if it is as good as the vids, it's going to be great.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Did you take a breath while typing that, Aramis? Not sure I agree with everything, but good reading.

 

[aramis]

Many, in fact. I spent about 20 minutes revising and rewording.

GT has, for many, the best potential. Well supported system, loads of details, and some modernizations to the setting.

T20 is for many, not a viable solution; it's based upon the 3.0 SRD, not the modern nor 3.5 SRD's

T5 is massively vaporware, and, to be honest, MWM shows no apparent knowledge of modern games theory.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Anton Devious:
Lets look at some of the simpler problems. Character Generation and Advancement. In D&D, you start out with a weak character and through adventuring build a hero by going up levels. When you go up you get new abilities.

Unfortunately, this system also meant that advanced players went up in things like hit points, and when you had mixed level players, those at lower levels had no fun at all. When someone figured out that a certain level fighter (I think 5th) could take a canonball to the chest, it became rather obvious that the system was seriously flawed.

As a gaming system, I've always felt that CT was great. A couple of small books, (all we had when I started playing in 1977) was all that was needed. That and the referee handles all subsequent events. Of particular worth, I always appreciated the fact that Traveller explicitely states that the rule are only a guide and that the referee should determine final outcomes.

I don't know if it's the game mechanics or just the players, but I've run into too many D20 and GURPS rules lawyers.

I think too many games are too detailed, and that complex or detailed rules often get in the way of enjoyable role playing. I never let the rules get in the way of a good story.

 

[rhoneycutt]

I think too many people act as if the background material is forever joined with game mechanic rules. I think its been shown that the background of the Imperium can be played with any number of rulesets.

The background ( tech architectures, various location data, etc. ) should be be allowed to be as complex as even the most insane gearhead/rockhead/grognard can handle, but the actual mechanics of the game ( task system/damage resolution/character stuff ) should be as simple as possible.

The task system should be one that can reasonably apply to all actions a player might wish to make, even if not perfectly ( but close enough ). The damage system should be reasonable when applied to any object that might get damaged, whether it's a player or a tank.

But let the background be as simulationist as a person could wish, even if simple guideline rules exist for people who aren't gearheads. Its this super-detailed treatment that form the metagames of building vehicles and worlds that is fun for those of us who don't have others to play face-to-face with.

 

[aramis]

Shere:
Detail in design not suppported by rules mechanics for playing that insane detail is mroe frustrating for the gearhead-lite types than no gearhead-details at all...

Detail in excess is the number one reviewer complaint about the OTU and the later rulesets...

Complexity and confusion go hand in hand. If you "gearhead out" the system, you lose probably half the extant player base, add far fewer, and wind up like CORPS: sworny by by a scant few, and worthy of praise, but generally unknown and unkowable due to lack of retail. (I'm exaggerating a smidge...)

 

[Ran Targas]

Not enough pictures!

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis: Detail in design does not need to be supported by the rules. After all, most details put forward are for the benefit of the background, not for the munchkin. Deckplans represent details, incessant arguments about how jump-drive works are details, as is information about how the Imperium gathers taxes.

All I am saying is, allow a framework for such details in building vehicles from bicycles to battlecruisers so such details for the background will always be in line with rules and not a hodge-podge thrown together with a multitude of houserules. And then use this framework to 'build' the basic ships, etc. for the simplistic style you prefer. The players don't need to ever see this architecture unless they wish to. But for the sake of consistancy, it should exist in some form.

And do the same for world-building
And the same for economics

I am not lucky enough to have a gaming-group to play with, so making these details is how I 'play' traveller. Do you wish to deprive me of that because it is not how you 'play'?

< doesn't matter. I'm rewriting FFS to fit my own views of how things should be anyways. and it is "gear-headed out" in ways beyond what the normal gamer would want, yet I am making it usable with MT rules....it is a hobby after all>

 

[Jeffr0]

I agree with Aramis.

If you have a design system, each component should affect some mini-game in some relevent and interesting way.

For instance, in Car Wars, no matter how many stupid gadgets they added to the game, everything mattered when you finally sat down to play. Things like Heavy Duty shocks had a specific and useful affect on the game play. You picked your components specifically for what they'd do for you in the game.

I could try to describe how Traveller is different than this, but it would probably start a flame war.

Shere Khan's tinkering-sort-of-play with Traveller systems is what frustrates me most about the game. That sort of person seems to (too often) be the intended audience for the game-- as opposed to people that actually play games.

Of course... I tinker with Traveller when I don't have time to organize 4 to 10 hour game sessions, so I understand the appeal of just messin' around. But the whole "Here's a bunch of crap now _you_ go make a game out of it" approach irritates me to no end.

 

[aramis]

Shere:
YOU DON'T PLAY TRAVELLER. You play only the minigame aspects.

Don't impose your solitare whims upon those of us seeking to roleplay. It's bad enough MWM does.

Yes, I too have whiled away hours on ship, system, even subsector designs, and many on CG. But those really are NOT the point... the point is telling a good story... anything which does not help that needs to go away.

IMO, that includes much of the detail that's been added. Great reading material, lousy for play, the OTU has become.

It also includes any design sequence stuff that doesn't matter in play... especially crap (yes, feces, dung, etc) like details of hoow many lockers are on a ship. It's not helpful; it is details that tie a referee's hands, not helps them.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis... I do not play anymore because I have noone to play with. Fie on your attitude that I am somehow less of a gamer for that. Just consider how you might stay involved with Traveller should you find yourself without any gaming group to play with.

I did play often, ref often, and write scenarios for others often in my younger years from late 1978 to mid 1985. My actual roleplaying these days manifests itself in written fiction. Some I share, most I don't. Same with 3d art or the various tinkering with rules that you seem to so despise. Frankly, it is attitudes such as yours that keeps me from sharing more of my work.

Do not impose your minimalist whims on others simply because you prefer a minimalist narrative style of play that I am no longer blessed enough to enjoy.

..........And you have obviously missinterpretted my point.

I fully agree that the rules that govern how players interact with the game universe should be simple and quick and general enough to apply to most situations, as opposed to a maze of special cases and exceptions. It is why I think MT is the one true way.

But.....
provide the dirty underside of the basis for the background so that everything 'built' using it is consistant and reasonable in accordance to the chosen rule system. If players don't wish to use it, fine. Then don't use it. The alternative is to come up with lists of 'things' pulled out of thin air.
As an example from the LLB's, I offer the UWP. In the LBB3, it was simple and quick, however book 6 added a layer, so did world builder's handbook, so did world tamer, so did Pocket Empires, so does nearly any decent book on biology, geology, climatology, etc.....but noone forces anyone to use it or do anything with it. Thats the choice of the players ( of which I am one ). To force a choice to use or not use such details or mini-games simply shows a distasteful elitist attitude.

....and as far as good roleplaying goes...a good background is always neccessary for a story. If I choose to while away my time writing one up for my own enjoyment, so be it. All I said was to allow for rules that make such things consistant from player to player within an official setting; to at least make things consistant in any 'official' additions/ modules/scenarios to the game.

 

[aramis]

For MT, MT is the ABSOLUTE UPPER LIMIT of acceptable details, perhaps across it.

MT is my "Best Traveller system out there", both in terms of not having too detailed a canon, and in having the best playing rules.

Niggling details and multiple design systems for the same scale inhibit FTF play, and even on-line play.

It's not just narrativism; it's also a layer of gamism. More correctly, it's anti-simulationism; when one gets to arguing ISP to the nearest hundred N per Td, one's lost focus of the fact that IT IS ONLY A GAME. That was one of the less nice results of FF&S 1 & 2.

THe desired "Detailed Architechture" is pure simulationism, and simmulationism belongs in commputer games, not FTF Play. It will result in a "why Bother?" attitude towards the less detailed systems (It sure did in T4 & FF&S2).

Each generation of traveller rules has gotten more simulationist, and less popular, until T20 & GT; GT is about as simmulationist as GURPS can tolerate, which is quite far, and T20 is very much gamist narrativist (in part due to the playtesters, myself included, who generally tended to Gamist, Narrativist, or Gamist-narrativist; Even Dr Skull, resident tech-head, is more narrativist than simulationist).

I didn't miss your point at all, Your clarification is exactly what I object to. I strenuously disagree on a detailed underpinning. It will be wrong, it will cause fights, and it will inhibit GM's. Even worse will be if it is released also with a simplification in the design process; the average GM who has only the lesser will either be confused, annoyed, not care, or be ridiculed, depending upon needs and players, but anything done using the simplification is already significantly inferior to the detailed design process in terms of potential performance.

Traveller is supposed to be a role-playing game. I do not object to related games, even solitare, so long as they don't castrate the GM.

The bulk of setting canon alone is stifling now; I've been saying for about 3 years now that the setting really needs to be gutted, and revised in a manner not inconsistent with what WWG's done with WOD.

THe "adding detail" methodology, when applied to worldbuilding, resulted in the somewhat arcane task of explaining "why would someone live on this hell-hole, anyway?" World Builder's was worse than useless: it was a distraction, a toolkit that made many GM's completely rewrite whole swathes of their settings. Under Bk3. one merely had to say that all mainworlds were in the right spot, or not, as fit the needs. If one is going to have a system design, then fine, design the system and then apply the rules to decide the mainworld. But don't have two different methodologies with inconsistent outputs.

I'm not a minimalist, by any means, but I do feel there is a point at which further detail is counterproductive, and that FF&S went well past in FF&S2; FF&S 1 was just a hare over. Heck, in many places, I advocated more complexity in T20 than CT/MT had. I am, however a narrativist.

 

[rhoneycutt]

It sometimes seems to me that you confuse "detailed underpinnings" with canon. I fully agree that the official published canon setting is far too bloated and has far to many inconsistancies to be playable...I haven't used it in 2 decades...just the bits and pieces I liked from it.
But I still feel that a detailed underlying system for how things work is important. Let the narrative style players simply use whatever details they like and ignore the rest. Let the simulationist style players 'build' things as they like...maybe the narrative players can find some of it useful. A common underlying ruleset for design would make that possible without injecting game-busting artifacts of multiple design systems.
I only advocate the detailed rulesets for making objects and settings, not for the ref's handling of things; simulate the simulated universe that the players play within, game or narrate everything else.
It is often a detailed and reasonable setting that allows the suspension of disbelief in novels. Even if that level of detail is never used, it is good to have it available if needed. And I say again...noone one would force you, or anyone else to use that bits you don't like. After all..canon is what the ref says it is, nothing more. If a ref feels constrained by published materials, its his own fault for being a nice sheep and doing what he's told instead of writing it up for himself. My clarification would allow others to use such writings ( if they found it worthwhile ) without making changes, thats all...without modifying writings from literally half a dozen incarnations of the game.

I think we had better just agree to disagree on this and concentrate on where our respective strength lay.

After all...its only a game.

 

[aramis]

There is no confusion between the two. They are both sypmtomatic of the same problem: excesive details.

In the setting, that it contradicts the results of the various technological underpinnings is a major issue.

The more detailed the tech underpinnings, the less freedom to develop story-line needs is left.

For example: there is little benefit to MOST referees in giving a deailed to-the-liter inventory of a stateroom's default. Mostly becuase, in that detail, one precludes and makes arguable by rules lawyers any variant thereof.

Likewise, Gearheads being what they are, I would much like to avoid the Isp Flamewars and Ve Flamewars of the past... and when getting predictive, detail is the enemy.

Also, when FF&S came out, it put ALL ship building in the hands of the gearheads. TNE implied to many new players "You're not good enough to handle shipdesign." So, in my area, several of the other groups were not using FF&S at all; ALL their designs were completely sans-tech-architechture. They used nothing but base level approximations. They didn't even go back to HG, since HG was incompatible with the TNE setting.

If you want a consistant system, then you keep it simple enough for everyone, no "detailed scale/simple scale" dichotommy in design. Absolutely provide different detail levels for use, but not for design, for the difference in design layers provides not confommity, but frustration, disconformity, puts far more on the outside than does a simpler, slightly more abstract, system, ala HG or T20.

 

[rhoneycutt]

The problem is not excessive details. The problem is that the official setting was constructed using details from several, not-so-compatiple rulesets. The problem is the often wacky and hard to continuously explain results from the rules sets which, due to canon needs, we are stuck with now. To correct them, breaks canon which many people irrationally hold high, with nearly religious fervor. This is the result of *not* having a single unifying set of underpinnings that allow for ( not require ) as much detail as anyone can stomach. How many of the problems originated because of the dozens if not hundreds of sets of house rules that came into being for the purpose of adding some desired detail to the game universe? I simply call for a rules unification with details to suit everyone from "rules are bad" story-tellers such as you position yourself to be ( after all, any rules take freedom away from possible storylines ), to the most obsessive-compulsive gearhead/rockhead possible. Refs then use what they like.

More details do not mean less freedom, but the potential for more storyhooks, when used intelligently.

And if I want a consistant system, then pandering to the lowest denominator is *not* the way to go. People who do want more will just make up their own rules in that case, which promotes the existence of wildly differing and incompatible underpinnings such as we've seen in the half dozen incarnations of Traveller so far. And I'm sure more versions will continue to be made as people try to 'fix' the problems. A clean slate is needed for that.

I grow weary of this.
I say you are wrong.
You say I am wrong.

But my solution does not take your style of play away from you as you would have done to me.
I've stated my opinion. This is the last posting on this subject from me.

 

[Murph]

Sometimes, I think that background/history should be completely seperated from game mechanics. I don't under any circumstances want MT+ levels of complexity. I want simple, elegant, straightforward ways to design ships, vehicles, weapons, and worlds. The old Book 6 (Scouts) UPP system was fine for me, I did not and do not want detail down to eighteen decimal places.

I am a good enough GM that I can extrapolate from the UPP, etc. I want things to be consistant. For me, High Guard was the penultimate design system, and Stryker an example of how not to do things. Stryker made it too hard, too gearheadish, High Guard had elegant simplicity.

As for the universe, perhaps it DOES need to be seperated from the Game system mechanics and published seperately.