What was wrong with CT?

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi:
I can understand your thoughts regarding the play balance mechanics not meshing well with the background, but at the time of its writing, Basic Traveller (Books 1-3) had NO background material. When Mercenary was released, we had our first hints of the Imperium, a trend which continued in the subsequent books, several of the supplements, and the adventures. Basic Traveller when it was written was intended to be setting independent. Deluxe Traveller, when released, tossed in The Imperial Fringe and a map of the Spinward Marches, which effectively cemented the Imperium's position as the default Traveller setting. But even the presence of a default setting doesn't preclude anyone from using their own settings if they take the time to create them. This applies whether you have Basic, Deluxe, The Traveller Book, or Starter.

No argument there. But they didn't modify the rules much (at all?) for MT, despite us knowing by that time that Vilani were long lived. But that's not really a CT gripe... just a general gripe.

 

[robject]

Lifespan rules end up not making much of a difference in gameplay -- those few lucky players who play more than a couple years of their PCs lives should feel privileged to actually have the aging rules apply.

I liked the T4 aging rules: every (4? 5?) years, test against aging effects: for each stat [Str, Dex, End], roll 2d6. If the result is lower than the tens digit of the PCs age, that stat loses one point. At a certain age, also include Int. Nice and simple, and grants long life too.

 

[Granpafishy]

5 years.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by robject:
Lifespan rules end up not making much of a difference in gameplay -- those few lucky players who play more than a couple years of their PCs lives should feel privileged to actually have the aging rules apply.

Dunno about you, but most characters get hit by it during generation and none of us felt it was a 'priveledge'. Graduating a character into play with a 4 strength and 3 dex because he was 46 sucked rocks.

I liked the T4 aging rules: every (4? 5?) years, test against aging effects: for each stat [Str, Dex, End], roll 2d6. If the result is lower than the tens digit of the PCs age, that stat loses one point. At a certain age, also include Int. Nice and simple, and grants long life too.

Haven't done the math, but that looks much better.

 

[Traveller]

Originally posted by Granpafishy:
5 years.

Traveller usually does aging in four year blocks. I haven't seen a version of the basic rules that deviates from that standard.

 

[Granpafishy]

I don't know about the rest because I don't have them, but T4 goes in 5 year increaments starting at age 35.

 

[Slapdragon]

The four year blocks were also essentially one year blocks that you could change your mind on direction every four years. I am sure that Mr. Miller choose four years because that is the normal time for an undergraduate degree and most terms of service are for four years (although they can be as short as two and as long as six).

As for the hex system, when Traveller started using it, hex was much more important for programming that it is now, so it seems like it was an interesting quirk. Today it gives Traveller a bit of flavor at the cost of making a line of figures confusing. How many of us have had to rush to a lookup table to find out what the E was in a starship list? However, UPP and hex codes where flavor, and I miss them in GURPs and other systems.

 

[Traveller]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:
How many of us have had to rush to a lookup table to find out what the E was in a starship list?

I never had to. I knew Hexadecimal by heart before I saw Traveller. And I'm not a programmer either. Just don't ask me to do math problems in Hexadecimal. I'd have to pull out my calculator.

 

[Traveller]

Originally posted by Granpafishy:
I don't know about the rest because I don't have them, but T4 goes in 5 year increaments starting at age 35.

Then I missed it in my hardcover copy of the rules. Then again I haven't READ the rules for T4 in like forever. It just didn't have the same flavor Traveller did.

 

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slapdragon:
How many of us have had to rush to a lookup table to find out what the E was in a starship list?

I never had to. I knew Hexadecimal by heart before I saw Traveller. And I'm not a programmer either. Just don't ask me to do math problems in Hexadecimal. I'd have to pull out my calculator. </font>[/QUOTE]Not what I meant. It is this problem:

542896E514B425-B

Then having to remember if spinal guns were 5th or 6th in the line and count over and find an E and then go, shoot -- what does THAT mean. Then rush to high guard and find out.

The problem was not Hex code -- which is easy, it was a long line of hex code or even plane numbers in the UPP or whatever that you had to then look up in a book. Saved printing space, was a great data compression method, but long lines of letters and numbers where not the most handy way of getting information.

 

[Traveller]

Which is why IN-3 was such a godsend. Because instead of looking at the High Guard overview on the last page, you could look at that. Of course that only applied to ships you did yourself.

The funny thing is that in building a crude spreadsheet that generated High Guard stats and doing some forty different ships by hand, you tend to learn the place of everything real quick.

But for my next magical trick, I might try to pull off large starship construction using Book 2 rules.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi:
But for my next magical trick, I might try to pull off large starship construction using Book 2 rules.

I've been trying that out myself:

http://home.comcast.net/~downport/rules/Book2QSDS_current.html

Until recently, I was even using the Drive Potential table.

 

[William]

Originally posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi:
But for my next magical trick, I might try to pull off large starship construction using Book 2 rules.

Try this article out:
http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/shipyard/book2plus.html

William

 

[Traveller]

I looked at both of them, and damn, everyone stole my idea!

Seriously, it's a good thing that it's been done before. I have High Guard, but other than the starship construction rules, I've never used it. Something simpler that would allow me to create larger ships would be wonderful.

Both robject and William have given me food for thought here.

*gives you both stars for your help*

 

[robject]

Originally posted by William:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi:
But for my next magical trick, I might try to pull off large starship construction using Book 2 rules.

Try this article out:
http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/shipyard/book2plus.html

William </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! Slaving together clusters of engines!! That's a GREAT idea!

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Big Tim:
[...] what what wrong with CT? Really, just at the core of it, what was wrong?

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.
[...]

CT? Nothing *is* wrong with it. Complete, clean, and simple. And still in print

The nice thing about T5 is that it's being developed slowly and thoughtfully by the same guy who wrote CT.

The best thing you can do for Traveller is to try out the playtest material, then send Marc an email with constructive criticism.

The playtest PDFs are at:
www.traveller5.com

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by robject:
CT? Nothing *is* wrong with it. Complete, clean, and simple. And still in print

If that's the case, why exactly do we 'need' a T5?

The best thing you can do for Traveller is to try out the playtest material, then send Marc an email with constructive criticism.

As I said on another thread - I think the 'best thing you can do for Traveller' is to play and keep the game alive in ANY of its forms that are currently available.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
If that's the case, why exactly do we 'need' a T5?

A moot point (heh heh, unintentional pun?). Rather, the issue is "if you're interested in what T5 is going to do or be, then give it a spin and submit your feedback".

In fact, given the other recent thread (about Traveller rules condemning milieux to a watery grave), I'd say anyone who has an interest in any form of Traveller also has enough of an interest in T5 to give Marc some feedback.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by robject:
Rather, the issue is "if you're interested in what T5 is going to do or be, then give it a spin and submit your feedback".

That would be a more reasonable way of saying it.

In fact, given the other recent thread (about Traveller rules condemning milieux to a watery grave), I'd say anyone who has an interest in any form of Traveller also has enough of an interest in T5 to give Marc some feedback.

I am very interested in Traveller as it stands, and yet I have no interest whatsoever in supporting or playtesting T5 - I'm happy with what I've got. Being interested in Traveller does not mean one is required to show any interest in T5.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Rather, the issue is "if you're interested in what T5 is going to do or be, then give it a spin and submit your feedback".

That would be a more reasonable way of saying it.

In fact, given the other recent thread (about Traveller rules condemning milieux to a watery grave), I'd say anyone who has an interest in any form of Traveller also has enough of an interest in T5 to give Marc some feedback.

I am very interested in Traveller as it stands, and yet I have no interest whatsoever in supporting or playtesting T5 - I'm happy with what I've got. Being interested in Traveller does not mean one is required to show any interest in T5. </font>[/QUOTE]If I have offended you, then I ask your forgiveness. You did show interest in our interest in T5, though, I presume? Thus your posts in this forum?