Will you switch over to a "modernized" LBB2 variant?

[Golan2072]

I am currently involved (along with several other people) in the development of "modernized" house-rules for LBB2, fixing the main issues and allowing for more variance without invalidating most "vanilla" LBB2 designs.

The main thread detailing our current work could be found here.

The main changes and additions will be:
1) Range-Band Combat as an option (for those of us, like me, who don't like vectors).
2) An expanded hull table, both filling the blanks (e.g. 300-dtons, 500-dtons, 1,200-dtons and so on) and expanding the table up to 12,000-dtons.
3) Additional ship components (e.g. Medlab, Laboratory, Hydroponics etc).
4) More varied weapons (e.g. Plasma, Fusion, Kinetic-Kill, Particle etc).
5) Clarified Missile and Sand rules.
6) Armor (one point of armor absorbs one "hit").
7) Massed Fire and a solution to the "150 lasers throwing to-hit per turn" problem.
8) Radiation Damage (ala S3: Missiles).
9) Small Craft design (using The Oz's rules).
10) Different TL limits on drives and hull size, allowing for larger hulls at lower TLs.
11) Computers modified into describing the ship's electronics system (sensors, communications and computer) and not just the mainframe; same tonnage/price, different interpretation.

Will such a system encourage you to use (the modified) LBB2?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Hmm...sounds like adding a CD player to a Model T Ford to me...

 

[Flynn]

I think this is a worthwhile endeavour, and encourage you guys to keep working it up. Such work adds a lot to the the quality of fan-base materials, and I'm all about that.

However, given the specific wording of your question, I can honestly say that it would not encourage me to use an LBB2 variant over other systems that are out there. There are just some things that other systems accomplish better than LBB2, for what I would want to use it for. However, by the time you're done, things might be such that I may have to reconsider my position.

But one of the things I'd have to see is something that follows the now-canonical TL limits on maximum Jump distances, and that currently isn't in LBB2, IIRC. I personally like the max Jump of 1 for TL9-10, Jump 2 at TL11, etc. It effects polity sizes, and I want lower TL polities to cover smaller regions of space as a result of their limited technology. It just makes sense to me, given the evolution of the game since HG. (Of course, that may violate the purposes of using LBB2.)

Still, I appreciate creative genius, and want to see what you guys can put together.

Looking forward to it,
Flynn

 

[Golan2072]

High Guard has its issues, too - less in the design sequence (made painless by HGS) and more in the combat system, which is problematic for PC-scale ships and tends to focus on huge ships rather than a single Free Trader running from Corsair or a Type-S fighting off a few fighters.

My current LBB2 project might as well end up as a source for insight for me for upgrading and "modernizing" HG...

 

[KenHR]

A lot of what you proposed here sounds great, and I'd love to see it when it's completed. I've already incorporated the expanded drive table into my game, and would probably just cherry pick what I like best from the rest of it. I'm not a fan of High Guard at all, but love the LBB2 system, warts and all.

Being a newbie with the game still, I haven't monkeyed a lot with the system (I want to understand why it was put together the way it was before modifying much of it), but a lot of this looks like it will address the issues that have arisen in my solitaire playtests. I really appreciate the time you and a lot of other folks on this board devote to improving this game. Who says old games get no support?

 

[robject]

High Guard's problems aren't really problems. The scope of HG is larger scale combat, which means it's for wargaming, not RPGs.

Book 2 is the only RP-oriented starship system for Traveller.

 

[Liam Devlin]

I chose #3. The future is pointing to a universal HG-styled design system, which will incorporate much of what you propose. Whether you, or someone else gets it pubbed, there will I go also.

 

[aramis]

Robject:

HG's problem is that it is included in the rules of an RPG, and includes (minimalist) interface elements for that RPG, without accounting at all for the scales of ships PC's might use.

Saying it's just a wargame and thus OK is about the same as saying Bk2 is just a minis game.

Both were written for use in RP sessions. HG SUCKS as a pure wargame; no maneuver, little tactics to speak of. As a narrative backdrop for an RP session, it works ok, especially if the GM fudges the heck out of PC actions.

 

[robject]

Yes, it's an LBB, and is surrounded by RP content, and sits in between two RPG LBBs. But we haven't been fooled for a long time. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I don't care if it says it's a fit for role-playing, we already know it ain't.

There are apparently people who do think HG is OK as a wargame -- those people are some subset of wargamers. I'm not in the set, so I can't comment as to how OK HG is.

 

[aramis]

I am a wargamer... it sucks. Unless you use the mayday tie-ins, it's a simple dicefest with no real "decisions" of note; it's pretty low on the playing skill.

It's an excellent (if exception riddled) set of design rules for starships. The combat system, however, is a lame set of rules for EITHER purpose.