Whither T20?
- Thread starter Allensh
- Start date
If by whither you mean like a garden in need of pruning and weeding. Agreed. But, if we are asking if that is it for QLI. Only Hunter can answer that. We are all expecting some sort of update, as he promised in December.
But, strength of Traveller has never laid with one company or line or another but its fans. There are some fan(antics) who claim everything went wrong when GDW released products past the initial LBBs and have claimed the end of all. I prefer to believe in something larger.
Yes, it is act of faith. But, I believe in my fellow human beings to create a universe worth living in - that universe is one that we are constantly building through our interactions and relationships that we do around a gaming table or a forum like this one.
But, strength of Traveller has never laid with one company or line or another but its fans. There are some fan(antics) who claim everything went wrong when GDW released products past the initial LBBs and have claimed the end of all. I prefer to believe in something larger.
Yes, it is act of faith. But, I believe in my fellow human beings to create a universe worth living in - that universe is one that we are constantly building through our interactions and relationships that we do around a gaming table or a forum like this one.
I suggested a T20.5 a while back. Even Spycraft came out with a 2.0 version. Along with D&D 3.5 and Star Wars Revised. I like the d20 system - it just seems intuitive and streamlined but modular.
But T20 seems to have enough problems that a Player's Guide had to be created just to be able to do the Prior History right. I sympathize with Hunter on his personal dilemmas, but maybe it's time for someone else to take the helm - call it a 'do over' or such. If I had the money, I'd take a shot at it.
Dameon
But T20 seems to have enough problems that a Player's Guide had to be created just to be able to do the Prior History right. I sympathize with Hunter on his personal dilemmas, but maybe it's time for someone else to take the helm - call it a 'do over' or such. If I had the money, I'd take a shot at it.
Dameon
I don't think GDW made a mistake with everything past the LBBs. I liked TNE, still do. The mistake would be relying on legacy sales and 1970's-era game systems to keep Traveller alive. If the only people who buy Traveller are those who remember it from the past, kiss it goodbye.
(Mind you, I like CT, and it would actually only take a few fixes to modernize it while still retaining its charm. What I have seen of T5 doesn't do that, in my opinion.)
My question was mainly about the potential life or death of the d20 version of Traveller.
Allen
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
I knew Traveller was going to go belly up when I saw my first foil cover, like for MT. My first thought was: "Crap, now Traveller has gotten as lame as comics are now" and when I started reading, I became convinced of that. They used cartoonish violence to make the game "interesting" which was a mistake.
It struck me as the Traveller Book re-edited to add the word and concepts of the fecal Rebellion. It lost me when it became a requirement to love the Rebellion as a concept.
I must state that I do not like all aspects of T20, but it is a good book, and a good shot at revving it up some. Still rules should be secondary to a direct and coherent background.
Here, on these boards, there seems to be more of a focus on tables and charts more than telling me what the Emperor is like as a person.
The person that said that it relies on nostalgia for sales is right, but I hope he's wrong. I see kids going glassy eyed playing Halo 2 or whatever, and I begin to think about retirement to the Old Gamer's Home.
It struck me as the Traveller Book re-edited to add the word and concepts of the fecal Rebellion. It lost me when it became a requirement to love the Rebellion as a concept.
I must state that I do not like all aspects of T20, but it is a good book, and a good shot at revving it up some. Still rules should be secondary to a direct and coherent background.
Here, on these boards, there seems to be more of a focus on tables and charts more than telling me what the Emperor is like as a person.
The person that said that it relies on nostalgia for sales is right, but I hope he's wrong. I see kids going glassy eyed playing Halo 2 or whatever, and I begin to think about retirement to the Old Gamer's Home.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree.
If we want to attract new blood to Traveller then:
a)it should be based on the most popular rules system out there to ease transition - which means d20. A lot can be done to the d20 core rules to adapt them to a more CT feel - T20 has made a good job of this.
b)it should offer the kind of sci-fi adventure they are expecting - which means Halo etc. as well as Battlestar Galactica, Firefly/Serenity, Stargate, Star Wars...
I am a die-hard fan of the MT RULES, but I don't use the setting.
While I am a die-hard MT Fan, I am quite proud of my role in T20. Myself, Dr Skull, and the other lead playtester basically did the development, save the writing side of it, for T20.
T20 is excellent. But it does need an update. We dodged in various ways that, in retrospect, may not have been good. (Mostly in CG and strict adherence to the SRD3.0.) Certain elements are truly exquisite: Ship and Vehicle design, the T&C rules.
T20 will survive as long as it is viable. Hunter could, quite easily, take the final version and e-pub it. (Hunter is under the mistaken belief that it's great size is problematic; many of the things on DTRPG are larger. I've discussed that with Hunter on the boards before.)
Me, I don't use T20, but I do use elements of T20 in my home-brew MT variant. (I put in T20 craft and T&C into MT, and use att/3, not att/5 for task mods.)
If I had a group of d20 junkies, I'd run T20.
While I am a die-hard MT Fan, I am quite proud of my role in T20. Myself, Dr Skull, and the other lead playtester basically did the development, save the writing side of it, for T20.
T20 is excellent. But it does need an update. We dodged in various ways that, in retrospect, may not have been good. (Mostly in CG and strict adherence to the SRD3.0.) Certain elements are truly exquisite: Ship and Vehicle design, the T&C rules.
T20 will survive as long as it is viable. Hunter could, quite easily, take the final version and e-pub it. (Hunter is under the mistaken belief that it's great size is problematic; many of the things on DTRPG are larger. I've discussed that with Hunter on the boards before.)
Me, I don't use T20, but I do use elements of T20 in my home-brew MT variant. (I put in T20 craft and T&C into MT, and use att/3, not att/5 for task mods.)
If I had a group of d20 junkies, I'd run T20.
archhealer
SOC-12
Prefacing this with the note that I very much enjoy T20, and am currently running T20 games with two different groups of players.
Having said that, T20 does need revision in the following ways:
Vehicle/Character/Starship scale movements need some means of being integrated together. Any time you have at least two of the three involved in the same combat, things get very confusing.
The Starship and Vehicle design sequences are fabulous, but need a little tweaking; specifically that large, heavily armed and armored vessels are a bit too vulnerable, even without critical hits. A single SI damage to an internal system that just kind of sneaks through, can completely disable even an expensive, high-tech, armored combat vehicle... what?
I feel the burst fire rules should be expanded somewhat and more heavily detailed. I've compensated for this with several house rules, but some more work would go down nicely.
There are also numerous typos and editing errors in the current publications; the eratta sheets are helpful there, but it'd be very nice to have them integrated.
While none of these are devestating problems, I think a lot of newer players would be more apt to get involved if they didn't immediately run into these particular problems. A simple T20 2.0 publication would likely be able to fix a great many of these problems.
Having said that, T20 does need revision in the following ways:
Vehicle/Character/Starship scale movements need some means of being integrated together. Any time you have at least two of the three involved in the same combat, things get very confusing.
The Starship and Vehicle design sequences are fabulous, but need a little tweaking; specifically that large, heavily armed and armored vessels are a bit too vulnerable, even without critical hits. A single SI damage to an internal system that just kind of sneaks through, can completely disable even an expensive, high-tech, armored combat vehicle... what?
I feel the burst fire rules should be expanded somewhat and more heavily detailed. I've compensated for this with several house rules, but some more work would go down nicely.
There are also numerous typos and editing errors in the current publications; the eratta sheets are helpful there, but it'd be very nice to have them integrated.
While none of these are devestating problems, I think a lot of newer players would be more apt to get involved if they didn't immediately run into these particular problems. A simple T20 2.0 publication would likely be able to fix a great many of these problems.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Starship Combat, especially Large Ship Starship Combat needs a relook. Radiation Damage definitely requires some official clarification. One shot, one hit, one kill Drednaughts need to be carefully looked at. (Both on the firing and the receiving end.) Was that really the intention?
My fix, being playtested for almost a year now needs a little work. (And we haven't gotten in any large ship combat yet.
A good quick way to generate reasonable NPCs would be a welcome addition.
Some clarifications as to whether the TA's or the T20 rulebook on the size of vls should be the official party line. (For now pick one and stick to it is the only answer.) (And are the vehicles in the TA's still scaled approximately correctly if you accept the THB reading of what a vls is?)
Just a few minor glitches that should probably be ironed out.
princelian
SOC-12
While I will preface that T20 is overall an excellent product, it is also rife with typos, errors, and other problems - the different scales are a clever idea (personal/vehicle/starship) but don't mesh, and that's just with me doing simulations. Put in a few players who aren't traditional wargamers (and therefore used to wading through abstract rules - c.f. Star Fleet Battles) and it will become cumbersome and confusing.
My wife is an editor, and she went through the errata .pdf on a whim, and found as much error density in it as in the original book. T20 needs an update to make it more coherent, fix the errors, and to smooth out the parts of the system that need work.
And **ALL** that being said, it's a good game that I can't wait to start running
Princelian, clear.
My wife is an editor, and she went through the errata .pdf on a whim, and found as much error density in it as in the original book. T20 needs an update to make it more coherent, fix the errors, and to smooth out the parts of the system that need work.
And **ALL** that being said, it's a good game that I can't wait to start running
Princelian, clear.
princelian
SOC-12
Oh, and "wither" is spelled w i t h e r, not whither, which means a selection between multiple places or situations. "Whither goest thou?" for example.
shadowdragon
SOC-12
The ship and vehicle design sequences are anything but “Exquisite”. In fact they are a pain in the arse. And then add to them that you are stuck with THREE design systems for ONE game and NONE of them work TOGETHER, only as separate units. I still have no idea what the computer design sequence was included for, since you cannot make a computer worth its credits smaller than a small car. As long as you only need 10 or so cpu you are fine, go bigger than that and it falls apart. Yes I am exaggerating a small bit here but in essence that is true. So, you can build a ‘puter, but can ONLY use it as a stand alone or MAYBE add it to a LARGE vehicle, but not a starship because oh yes the POWER POINTS don’t match up at all, and there is NO conversion table.
Not to mention that 100dtons = 140,000 vL BUT powerplants for each system don’t even remotely relate to each other. HUH? And this is just a sample of problems I have with the design sequences, AND have read in various threads. There are MANY more.
Now, I really like the Traveler ‘verse. I REALLY like T20, even with its faults. But c’mon people, the threads I have read from this board tell me you all already know all these problems, and have as little clue how to do more than band-aid it as I do.
All I can think to do is rewrite the whole kit as two design sequences, computer and vehicle. A chassis is a chassis. Be it a tank or a starship. A powerplant is a powerplant. Be it a fuel cell, solar cell, fusion plant etc. Armor is armor. It should all work together.
I think that trying too hard to keep everything completely backwards compatible may strangle T20 in the long run. Maybe finding a way to easily convert from one system to another might help. While many other areas of T20 may need some clarification, the design sequences need a real rebuild.
Just my meaningless opinion….
Not to mention that 100dtons = 140,000 vL BUT powerplants for each system don’t even remotely relate to each other. HUH? And this is just a sample of problems I have with the design sequences, AND have read in various threads. There are MANY more.
Now, I really like the Traveler ‘verse. I REALLY like T20, even with its faults. But c’mon people, the threads I have read from this board tell me you all already know all these problems, and have as little clue how to do more than band-aid it as I do.
All I can think to do is rewrite the whole kit as two design sequences, computer and vehicle. A chassis is a chassis. Be it a tank or a starship. A powerplant is a powerplant. Be it a fuel cell, solar cell, fusion plant etc. Armor is armor. It should all work together.
I think that trying too hard to keep everything completely backwards compatible may strangle T20 in the long run. Maybe finding a way to easily convert from one system to another might help. While many other areas of T20 may need some clarification, the design sequences need a real rebuild.
Just my meaningless opinion….
How does the Vehicle Design system compare to that of D20 Future then? Do you like the way D20 Future Spaceships are designed, you get only the long axis on them, you start with a spaceship with a bunch of different properties and you modify it to fit your needs. You don't know how much floorspace is in the spaceships, and the spaceships don't accelerate, they just shift between various speeds. Also when an enemy combatant comes within range, they automatically slowdown for combat much like what occured under the Spelljammer rules.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Or you know, you could actually try playing Halo and Halo 2 yourself, because they're pretty good games with a rather nifty storyline that could easily be nicked for Traveller...
archhealer
SOC-12
I agree; the HALO books ( Haven't played the game ) had soem great ideas that I'm absolutely borrowing for my T20 games.
As for the design sequence; the seperate systems for starships and vehicles is, yes, a pain in the ass. The abstracted Vl measurement for mass/volume is a pain in the ass.
It's still better than any other design system I've seen for any D20 compatibe game.
As for the design sequence; the seperate systems for starships and vehicles is, yes, a pain in the ass. The abstracted Vl measurement for mass/volume is a pain in the ass.
It's still better than any other design system I've seen for any D20 compatibe game.
